Tag Archives: western science

1 September 1988 Personal Correspondence on Cross-cultural Science Translation (PDF)

Sept. 1, ’88.

REf. Native Science Conf.

Dear Pam

Here is my suggestion for the “Frame” for the Native Science Conference. There is nothing I can say to you that you do not already know. I only attempt to write out some ideas that might make you feel assured. You are honoring me by taking the posture of asking for help. Whether I could help or not, I have to respond.

I gave you a picture of the Matrix. So this time I shall explain the Matrix and add notes. The picture is simple, but it has to be so. Once you get into discussions, however, the picture turns quite complex. Perhaps, it may be better explained in several “Levels”. As to the trick of “Simplicity” which constitutes the backbone of European “Science”, there are several philosophical problems. But I shall explain them later (see Appendix A).

Level I. Nominal Comparison

Imagine average North American White Male University students, and consider a task of explaining Native Science in contrast to European Science, such as;

(1) That Native Science is not “alienated” from its practice.

(2) Native Science/Counseling is more “Supportive” than “Clinical”

(3) Native Science is an integral part of Communal Living, not Individualistic Assertion of Knowledge. There is no Intellectual Hero in Native Science.

Having such a task in our mind, let us look at a “Comparison Table” (Map) such as below, and think about what questions the simple map might generate.

The basic idea here is to trace 4 items in relation, not just pairing comparison of 2 in antagonism. Dialectics of conflicts must be presented, but at the same time if we can shift our attention to the relational dynamics in looking at 4 items, that would be nice. I am trying “Quadra-lectics”.


[Table 1]

European Native American



Therapy Medicine

Ritual Healing



Medical Science Clinical


Medicine ( ? )

Social Sciences Social Works Community

Participation /


( ? )

– – – – – – –

I–1. The Question on the Existence of Native Science.

The first reaction of the students is to question “Does Native Science Exist?” They might say, “Science” has to be “documented” knowledge (book knowledge). Therefore, (in the nominal sense) Native Science does not exist.”

You have gone through the question thousands of times, and you even feel angry about the ignorance of the students. [Besides, for the participants of the planes conference, the answer is already clear. There is no need to go back to the rudimentary question.] But, be patient. The question is not trivial.

Let us look at possible questions/debates the table might generate. i.e.

a. “What example of Native Science do we have?”

b. “Where and how can one find Native Science?”

c. “What use does it serve to find Native Science?”

d. “Why do we need to elaborate/document on Native Science?”

“Does it help anybody?”

e. Do not Natives have/want “Wisdom”, not “Book Knowledge” sense of “Science”? Do they wish to be “Scientific” in the sense “Technical” or “Intellectual”?

If “Science” means “to reduce anything into simple mechanical routines”, is it not reducing Wisdom/Spirit into Machine?

f. “Suppose there is a set of basic ideas, guiding principles, metaphysics, or world-view, for the Native Praxis. Can we call it “Science” without modifying, correcting, or enlarging the European notion of Science?” “If so, on what ground can we justify the change?” “Is the change necessary?” “Does the change help anybody”? “Why do we need alternative sense of Science?”.


I-2. Questions on European Science.

But then, there are questions about European Science. The advantage of Quadra-lectics is that it makes easy to see there also exists conflicts/problems/antagonism/tension inside European Science. One has to look at every combination (there are 6 of them) of the 4 in relation.

a. There are problems in asserting that (European) Psychoanalysis is a “Science”.

European “Medicine” may be more of an Art than a Science.

How Scientific are the Sciences, such as Social Sciences or Physics?

b. What is the relation/connection between “Science” (Theory/Knowledge) and Practices?

What good does Theoretical Science provide to the Praxis? (What roles does “Theology” play in Religions as social/psychological phenomena?)

Is the theoretical sense of science only for edifying?

c. How relevant are “Social Sciences” to “Social Works”?

How useful is it to elaborate “Theory” for the people who practice routines which are nominally associated (subjugated) to the Theory?

What does the science of Economy say about the bureaucratic system/technique/procedure of the Social Work/Service/Welfare?

To be sure, it is reasonable to question if the Economics that we have in our academia today is a “Science”. It is sometimes said to be “Dismal Science”, but it may not be a “Science” at all.

Interestingly, by some strict definition, Physics is not a Science. Some physicists even “proudly” say that they are “Artists”.

d. What is wrong with being a “Non-Scientist”? Why should every good thing be a “science”? Is not being a “Humanitarian” enough?

Those questions have to be asked to make a comparative match with questions in I-1.

[See for the problems of European Medicine; Charles E. Rosenberg in The Care of Strangers, Basic Books 1987, talks of the inconsistency of “Vocation” and “Stewardship” which are nonetheless made into a “marriage of convenience” between Healers and Hospital. Illich, Foucault, et al likewise criticized the Medical Profession/Institution. And even our conservative governments are aware of some of the problems, because it costs too much.

I suspect the institutions of “Clinical Social Work” have similar problems with “Medicine”. The “Success” of Institutionalization/Professionalization always brings problems.

And, this leads to the question of the Social Cost (Pollution, Entropy) of the Mechanical Thinking that is worshiped as “Scientific”.]

I-3. Why bother making a comparison?

You might say; “I have made comparisons. So what?” In fact, you showed me many articles which are written on comparisons. Ones which attack European Science always carry some comparisons as the basis of attack.

On the basis of comparisons, one can go to

(i) Assimilation (Surrender) to European Science,

(ii) Rejection of Science without assertion of an alternative.

(iii) Rejection of Science, with assertion of Pure Humanism, Spiritualism, or Wisdom.

(iv) Compromise, Reconciliation, Integration.

(v) Construction of Strategy to deal with the Conflicts/Problems.

(vi) Emergence of Alternative Science, with a creative vision of World Community.

In terms of questions, students might ask

a. Is it not a step in assimilating Natives inot the Domination by European Intellect?

Just because European Culture/Civilization has a distinct fragment called “Science”, why should Natives have it?

b. Is not the show of difference a device to “demonstrate” the Intellectual inferiority of Natives?

c. When European Science itself is having troubles, if not in crisis, why should Natives look for “Science” to copy the troubles?

d. What are we going to do with the differences? Are we to eliminate the differences, say by making one of them extinct?

e. Are we not interested in Native Science, because we have troubles with our European Science? [Turning Point, et al]

II. Level II Case Studies at Level I

Here, we consider Graduate School level of talking/thinking. They presumably had exposure to the level I questions, at least some of them. You are a Professor supervising young Ph.D. candidates who are working on Native Science. What would you tell them?

 For Master’s Thesis, an articulation/elaboration on the Level I questions is a good exercise. They must do one. They must read and know a body of materials (book knowledge) and do at least one “Field Work” to see what the written materials are talking about. I point out here that even if one does work on one aspect, having awareness of the overall picture is helpful. That is the Table I is worth looking at repeatedly. The Map tells where one is.

This level of work is publishable in academic journals. In fact, many are published. But they are “academic” in that they are not intended to help people.

One might select a thesis that Native Communities (Culture) ought to reject European Science in totality and live in an “Ideal Isolation”. I concede that this might be a possible and viable strategy for some nations. When an African Economist proposed it as an answer to the problem of Economic Colonialism, I agreed. The Burmese Socialist Government, which is talked about in News Media today, tried this. Pol Pot Communists went to the extreme of even eliminating “science” along with “Intellectuals”. [Mao’s Red Guard was anti-intellectual, but respected “Science”. What Mao might have thought or hoped of “Science” — that is, there is a dialectics of “Destructive Technology/Constructive Science — may be a topic at Level III.]

I acknowledge the value of Warning Statements, pointing out problems of European Science. But I wonder what the writers are thinking as to what to do about the problems that they saw.

One can write and talk about “Rejection of European Science” and “Back to Traditional Native Medicine”. However, the comparison to European Science is there. Even if the comparison is rhetorically avoided, such works can hardly escape from being a “Reaction” to European Science.

What is worse, by the “angry rejection”, they may be taken as implicit acknowledgement that they cannot overcome European Science — i.e. acknowledgement of unquestionable superior “rationality”, “intelligence”, “power”, etc. of European Science. Saying “I cannot help Europeans from going down to Hell with their Science” may be taken as an equivalent of saying Native Wisdom has no capability to help.

That leads us into Level III. (Critical Reflection), and IV. (Creation of Alternative Science).

III. Critical Reflection

III-1. Supportive Counseling versus Clinical Operation.

As an example, let us take up the differences between “Clinical Therapy” and “supportive Counseling”. Native Healing is “Supportive”. It is not done in the sense of “putting a totally incapacitated patient, knocked unconscious, on a table to operate on it”. (The pardigmatic Metaphor of European Medical Science). Native Medicine often involve Family and Community. It was not done on an Individual basis. All powers (love relations and functions) are solicited for help. Medicine men/women are “Mediums” and “Facilitators” for the power to come together, not power itself.

In the beginning, I said “North American White Male Students”. Female students are excluded, because in the “Macho Science”, they may not talk/think/behave in the “typical” ways. There is usually considered to be a weakness and “unscientific” tendency in Females. they do not like to play the role of (Male) God in cutting up people on the operation table, even if the ultimate aim is to help the guy. Females tend to see “People” being sick or in trouble, rather than entertain the glorious mission of fighting a War against Disease (Evil) as Male Doctors often do. Male Doctors do acknowledge “Will To Live” in patients, but such “help” is solicited in “their” Fight against Disease. “Conquer the Disease” is the main paradigm of Male Medical profession. “Care of person” is the job of nurses, not doctors.

It is not that Females are dysfunctional in Clinical situations. In fact many are engaged in Clinical Social Works — except that they tend to take a posture of either (i) “being told” what to do, alienating them from personal involvement/responsibility, or (ii) like the case of the Big Nurse, identifying themselves with the Power Structure. they are more at home with “Supportive Counseling”, if not merely “Comforting”.

That makes interesting “observation” what Native Healing (Medicine, Science) is “Feminine”. Calling upon the help of the Power Spirit is not the same thing as having a sense of Power within oneself.

In the context of Social Works, what are the role/function of the workers? And what kind of Science would be helpful for them?

For the Clinical works, there Power Science justifies, and even what they do is a false sense of compelling workers to do.

Is there any “Science” behind supportive Counseling?

Evidently, the Support is needed, appreciated, and recognized as effective. But “Science”?

European Science came from “Fighting”. Humans, faced With Fear, either get aggressive or regress into inability. In that “Science” is “empowering” — to make humans assertive, aggressive, active —. “Love Play” has always been in Science, particularly in creative works, but it has always been “subservient”, “secondary”, “helping side” of the Power side. There have been many talks by great scientists about “Love” in science, but texts in Science do not intend to “teach” about that.

I would imagine even Clinical Social Works is motivated by “Love/Care”. But “Love/Care” is not the main “Operational Principle” of the Clinical Social Work, but the “Power of Technical Routines” is the main concern. Having or seeing Problems, the Clinical Operation set itself up as the means to Fight — the “War” to eliminate the problem —.

“Supportive Counseling” may be seen as “weak”; some might perceive it as “ineffective”, if they do not know the performance, say in terms of quantified “Success Rate”. This is because the Support gives an impression that it leaves the problem unresolved. It is not attacking the problem directly, but merely caring for the person.

The separation/dichotomy of “Being” and “Problem” is a heritage from Ancient Atomism. Being is a Dynamics and Problem is a Dynamics. Although the “level” of Dynamics may be different they are both Dynamics (Interaction). The Mechanical Science whch sees “Beings” as “Objects” is totally inadequate. There exists the awareness of such an inadequacy in some sciences, but it is far away from the “Science” of the Clinical Social Works. And because the majority in Social Works is Clinical, the Social Works as a whole has not yet come to construct “Science” for the “supportive counseling”. It is left for a few brave (or rather bleeding) souls to practice on ad hoc basis.

It is not only Native Science that is unrecognized and repressed, but all “Love Sciences” are.

This is a topic for the Level III works.

III-2. The Difficulty of Translation

Another possible topic at Level III is that of “Translation”, “Cross Cultural Understanding”, “Bridging”, “Interfacing”.

It is understandable that the Native Community entertains an Ideology of Separation/Rejection. After all, it has been European Culture that separated, rejected Natives. European Domination accepts only total Surrender of Natives, territory, culture, bodies, souls, and even history.

Therefore, naturally any attempt in the direction of “understanding” is suspected or viewed as “Compromise”, “Betrayal”, “Sell Out”, “Contamination”.

In many Colonized countries, a certain portion of natives became “Translators” for the European Power. They enjoyed somewhat privileged positions in the power structure, while others were mercilessly exploited, oppressed, killed and even sold as slaves. East Indians were often imported into other colonies to serve as lower class officers for European Administrators. Even after these colonies gained independence, the “Class Distinction” remained. [Japan narrowly escaped that owing to the late coming of Europeans to the Far East.] Native Americans have never developed such a “Class Distinction”, but nonetheless there are resentments against those who sell services to Europeans.

Eber Hampton in “The Sweat Lodge and Modern Society” mentions the destruction of Native Agriculture, which David Riesman missed in his Harvard lecture. Indeed, that is a “deliberately forgotten history” (The Big Brother erased it). But many Natives themselves seem to have erased the history when they refer to “Traditional Fur Trade”. The Fur Trade, when Iroquois Nations became addicted, destroyed their Agriculture and Community Craft Industry that they had. Hunting to provide for their own community needs is Traditional. Hunting to sell furs is not. I say this not as an accusation, but as an example of how easy it is for History to be destroyed by “Translators”.

And one thing which caught my attention is that Eber Hampton appears to be proud of “Indian English”, but it is strange for a guy like me who never learned English enough to develop “my own English”. I only manage to read an write in English as a “Foreign Language”. To me Indian English is not a Native Language. However, that betrays a tragic reality of Native Life today. Namely, without Translation into Academic English, Eber could have gotten nowhere.

You might say “Live with Native Language!” That is easy to say, as long as one is not going to do it in real life. Even without European Languages, what will Natives today do? What about the rifles that they use in their hunting? What about power boats? TVs, refrigerators, Trucks, Supermarket, Hospitals and Alcohol? The pens and papers used to apply for European Welfare? They are not “Languages” in the formal sense, but, they are the kind of idioms and vocabulary by which Native Living is spelled out.

There are millions of “Non-Reserve Indians” whose homes are on the streets of Whitemen’s Cities. Thousands of Native children were adopted by European families. Even if “Pure Blood Indians” opted for total separation in some Indian Territories (Nations, Reserves), there would be millions who will be “Outsiders”.

And what will the pure-blood Nations do about dealings with the rest of the World? A Closed State in political rhetoric is easy, but the problems of actually Living Life cannot be wiped off by the inflated hot rhetoric. Much as I admire and sympathize with the sentiment which might say, “Fuck European Science”, I cannot imagine any other way but to come to terms with European Science in one way or another.

And to come to terms with the other Science, one needs to have one’s own Science, or equivalent thereof. Ideally, the Native Science is so much better in that it can understand European Science, including its limitations, weaknesses, and faults, as well as strength and power. One cannot get that by closing the door and watching T.V. while drinking beer and liquor from European stores.

Let David Riesman be alone. He can rot in his ignorance. As far as he is concerned, he is doing very well without knowing about Natives. Even if he happened to know about Natives, he is not obliged to restore Native Farming for Education. Therefore criticizing David Riesman is a waste of time. It can only be done by Natives.

The atrocities, sufferings and pains inflicted on Natives, pureblood or otherwise, inside reserves or outside, are Real. They are there, whether one likes it or not. They cannot be ignored. Europeans imposed them on Natives, but if Natives do not remove them, Europeans would not. That makes dealing with European Science unavoidable. There, Translators have very important roles to play. If European Science is the Enemy, one has to know it to fight it. One might even think about the possibility of “Beating the Enemy at his own Game”.

Righteous indignation is natural, and there ought to be more of it. That is the Passion needed. I would venture to say that is the Fire Way. However, sooner or later, one has to come to the question of “What To Do About The Problems?”

To face the question of “What To Do About the Problems?” is a Science. Describing the problems, so that many people come to know the problems and can start building basis of co-operation, is the important first step in the Science. But one cannot let one’s passion be exhausted by that. There is a next step, which is harder.

If we attempt Science, we need

(1) The “Science of knowing what problems are, and

(2) The Science of knowing what to do about them.

The second step has to be persistent. I would characterize it as the Water Way.

[There is the Earth Way to make things concrete, and the Wind Way has to help with Creativity needed. Then must come the Tree Way to Integrate and gently embrace the whole. But that is the topic of Level IV.]

Let me try here my armchair psychoanalysis. Natives are brave, and they are not afraid of European Science. What they Fear is not that. They are not “running away” from European Science under the disguise of righteous indignation — though European Science is indeed horrible —. The psychological trouble is that any Learning involves Love. Learning of Science is “Erotic”. Traditionalists may indeed Fear this “Love Affair”. They are afraid of “Seduction” by European Science.

Education can be “Sweet”. Yet my grandfather rioted against the Japanese Government when it imposed the school system on his village. He said, “It is bad enough that peasants are forced to pay high Tax, but now the Government is taking our children away”. He appeared to stand against Education. That is strange for one who learned to read and write on his own. He was not afraid of Science, but eagerly read and learned. Besides, he often took care of “troublesome kids” from villages around, and was known as a great educator (Therapist/Counselor). But his sense of Education was not “School Education”. Being a peasant himself, he knew what was needed to be learned. He never lost his Peasant Spirit. I have known a Scholar in the same village who was reading works of French Linguist in 1945 when most Japanese did not have any more than one pair of shoes, in the aftermath of WWII. In 1945, the life of Japanese was worse than that in, say, Nigeria then, a lot less than “Bushmen” in Canada. He did not become a Frenchman but stayed as a Peasant even after he became the president of a college. He was entirely self-taught. It is unfortunate that Japanese Peasants are not well known as “Samurais” who constituted less than 10% of the Japanese population.

I am not saying the Japanese are any better in comparison with Native Americans. They have a lot of problems. But the point is that learning European Science without selling our souls is possible. One jus has to remember that accumulation of “knowledge” is not of any value, but how much help one can offer to others in community is the measure of Science.

Level IV. Tree Science

This is Pam’s Science. I am not qualified to talk about it. The Conference hopefully comes to the Vision of it. Or better yet, Pam will bring a Prophecy. I am merely guessing at your dream. By introducing “Quadra-lectics”, you are overcoming the antagonistic paradigm in European Dialectics and introducing “relational science” which is a better Format for Healing/Love. You suggested the idea of 4-in-Relations not by so much words, but by dream-pictures.

I imagine you would talk about concrete, real, direct and personal experiences in Community Counseling. It is always good that talk is made “concrete”. But, You are “Counseling” the World Community by the same talk. If you can help the Healing of a Native Community, the very same Science can heal the World Community.

You might talk about your Science that you are raising.

There was one thing You said that was something to the effect of “in some cases there may not be a cure”. I do not know what you were referring to. Therefore I may be totally off the mark. But if you mean by “cure” in the “Clinical” sense, there is no cure for any case. The community has to recognize its own problem. The community has to do its own healing. Agencies from outside can only be helpers. Suppose the agencies of the dominant culture find a situation in some native community is a “problem”, then it is likely that the “problem” is, by a large measure, caused by the dominant culture. [If a child is behaving badly, it is likely that the family is in trouble.] And if so, then Clinical Therapy ought to be applied to the dominant culture, first of all.

If the Clinical Therapy is either not workable or not acceptable to the dominant culture, it is silly to expect the same would work for, or be acceptable to, the Native Community in question. One cannot apply the Principle of “Do as I tell you, not do as I do”. Science ought, at least, to be honest.

One of the advantages you have is that you are in a position to practice the therapy of the dominant culture, though yours is not the “clinical” kind. If you remember, that is where I met you, namely in Peace Research which is a science for “counseling” the World, in particular the most powerful of European Nations. It is what I might call “Social Therapy”.

Here, I like to tell you that Newtonian Mechanics was a very powerful “Therapy” (Brainwashing) which “empowered” Europeans to Industrialize. Yet, Newtonian Mechanics is made of nothing but “Words” and “Metaphors”.

You might think about why the “Story” called Newtonian Mechanics was so effective, so powerful. If you were in the Europe of the 16th century, you might have said that there was no “cure”. Germany did not come into the “Scientific Revolution” until the 19th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, Russians and Italians were no more ahead of the Japanese who started to learn European Science some 20 years before that time. And the learning of European Science in any country came at a horrendous cost.

Your Native Science (or Tree Science) may appear powerless. Because the only thing you can do at this moment is just make up “stories”. You may not foresee the consequences of what you are making up, any more than Galileo, Descartes and Newton did about their “Stories”. But, that does not mean there is no consequence, no effect. You might get a big surprise. It is not defending the traditional Native Culture that I am concerned about, but rather I am interested in Native Science as a Creation of Alternative Science which works for the World. It is a gift from Native Culture.

That brings me to say a few things about “Science”. “Science” is not an object of Archeological Study of some Dead Knowledge. It has a life, dynamic, development, creativity. At least, Science responds to the problems of community of the time. Or rather, Science is created and manifested as the response of Community to its problems. Just as Love takes a particular form of expression in a particular relationship, Science is particular to the situation; The Vision that one seeks is particular to the one who is in the particular circumstance. I respect ancient Wisdom. but Wisdom is wisdom, only if it is alive in the minds and souls of people today and functioning. That is why the learning of wisdom takes creativity. And I hope all the suffering Natives have had to go through was not vain.


This is incomplete, but I send this to you for now. The Appendix A shall follow.


Sam K.

P.S. Thank Chyna for me. I appreciated her patience. She is an impressively well-behaved, happy child. Her mother must be a very loving person. I wonder if I am wrong in saying “Looking at a Child is looking at Parents”.

The Need of Sensitivity in Science: As the foundation of Cross-Cultural Science Education

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 1



—As the foundation of

Cross-Cultural Science Education—

“Science sets forth this formative process in all its detail and

necessity, exposing the mature configuration of everything which

has been reduced to a moment and property of Spirit. The goal is

Spirit’s insight into what knowing is. ”

[Hegel: Phenomenology Of Spirit. 1807.]

1. That what we usually think as “Science” is “Power Science”

and lacks Sensitivity.

The image of Powerful Science bulldozing through problems

and resistances to get things done is very strong in our mind.

And, therefore, it is hard to talk about “Sensitivity” as an

important element in Science.

Occasionally we do talk about beauty, poetry in science,

such as Fabre’s The Diary of Insects, and Einstein’s Cosmic

Vision. But, I am afraid, we tell such stories as “diversions”

from the main instructional materials. Perhaps we tell more jokes

of dubious value to entertain students more frequently than

telling about the “sensitive” tender elements in Science.

By and large we treat the sensitivity in Science as of

secondary importance. As a consequence, teaching practices of

Science tend to be that of imposing the Powerful Science on the

minds of students. We may not be conscious of us doing that. But

if we step back and look at our practices, it appears that we are

teaching Power side of Science almost exclusively and neglecting

I think it is unfortunate, for the creative thinking, the

sensitivity is essential. Even if the majority of human

population has to perform mechanical routines to make a living,

our children deserve an educational period where they are treated

with the delicacy of the Sensitive Science. For that reason, I

would try here a “scientific explanation” of

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 2

the Sensitivity, is a rational to stress the importance of it in

Science. I hope, my explanation is sufficiently general to

encourage Sensitivity in human life in general.

And, I have a feeling that what I meant by Sensitivity also

has some meaning to the Cross Cultural Education. Since I am not

familiar with the Cross Cultural Education that experts here are

engaged, I do not make a claim. Rather, I would like to ask you

if what I am going to discuss here has any relevance to the Cross

Cultural Education. I would be grateful if you kindly give me

back responses and reactions to what I said.

2. Where can Sensitivity be located in our Intelligence?

In order to introduce the Sensitivity, let me talk briefly

about “Science” in general. To save time, I present a simplified

archeological diagram here.

Science is a part of human intelligence to use the

faculties of our brain/mind.

(i) The first level of intelligence on the surface is Object

Recognition level. This is what Atomism does. We recognize

objects and identify them. We sometimes decide to ignore things

as well at this level.

(ii) The second level is Relation Recognition level. There we

think of relations between Objects. Statistical Correlations,

Causal linkages may be recognized and identified. Basically, the

relations recognized are of the “Linear” kind. [*See Subnote 1.]

(iii) The third level is Utility Recognition level. We sense what

we can do with the objects and relations we recognized.

(iv) The fourth level is Strategic Construction. This is often

referred to as “Problem Solving” intelligence. We take the

situation at hand as the starting point, and see the desired

state as the final point. If we find “The Means” to connect these

two points, we call it “The Solution” of the problem.

As such, the fourth level resembles the second level,

except that the “Connection” (Relation) is imposed by us. And,

often times, the task of finding the “means” to connect the two

points is accomplished by ignoring and cutting off relations that

existed. The image for this “problem

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 3

solving” is Alexander The Great cutting a knotted ball of string

with a sword in one blow. The sword is the imposed connection

cutting through all pre-existing relations. Unfortunately, this

happened too many times when a powerful dominant Culture met

In these 4 levels, there is no need of the Sensitivity.

Rather, we would think of the “Minimum” that is necessary for

what is desired. We deem that is “Efficient” and “Rational”

within the contexts considered.

For example, we recognize two towns on both sides of a

mountain. That is at the Object Recognition level. We see people

going back and forth between the two towns. This is the Relation

Recognition level of thinking. We see the Utility of the

exchanges. And we Bulldoze to make a Highway between them and

think that the problem is solved.

The “Science” in our ordinary sense is an organized and

formalized “knowledge” at the above 4 levels of intelligence. It

empowers people in that sense. Let me call this Power Science. It

lets us do things. But there are levels below this, if we dig

into our minds deeper.

(v) Although we seldom think any deeper than the Power Science

levels, we occasionally do “Think Twice”. We ask whether or not

the construction of the Highway was a good thing. Let me call

this 5th level intelligence as the “Reflective Level”.

We do have this intellectual capacity to “Think Twice”

about what we have done, and also sometimes what we are about to

do. That is where the Sensitivity comes in. Although we have the

Power to do and to get a certain thing that we desire, we ask

ourselves if doing so might not hurt someone. We exercise a care

to protect other’s safety, interests, wellbeing. This takes a

fair amount of imagination as to the situations that we are about

This requires thinking of the whole system of things in a

complex web of relations. It is different from the kind of

thinking of Power science which can be metaphored as that of

“Drawing a line from a point A to a point B”. For, in the complex

web of relations, there are lines from the point B to the other

point C, which in turn relates to other points. All linked in

that sense, the circle of the linkage most likely comes back to

the initial point A. That complicates the situation. A

straightforward thinking is only applicable

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 4

to linking nearby points. The whole circle of relation is not

“straightforward”, but rather “Non-Linear”. That makes thinking

[Linear/ Non-Linear distinction is explained in Subnote 1.]

But the strange thing is that Humans do have an intuitive

sense by which they can “Feel” the harmony or disharmony of the

whole system. Even in highly theoretical works, physicists often

came to “Feel” the whole thing and said it is a “Poetical

Beauty”, or “Poetical Unity”.

That is the “Care” that one exercises to understand the

whole of the cyclic relationships and the “Beauty” that one feels

about the whole are related.

I think it is highly desirable that children are given the

opportunity to experience the “Care” and “Beauty”. It requires

Sensitivity to experience it. But the Sensitivity cannot be

developed without experiencing it. I think this is a great

challenge of Science Education.

I would like to suggest that Science Education has to aim

at the caring level of intelligence. And I think it is possible

to lead students to that level by asking them to “Think Twice” as

often as possible. The Science Education has to contain exercises

for saying “I can do this But on the other hand…” Such exercises

are training for Sensitivity.

We might call this “The Sensitivity Science Education”, in

a contrast to the “Power Science Education” that we have been

And I hope that they enjoy seeing the “Beauty” attained

after many exercises of “Thinking Twice”.

3. The Sensitivity Science is a “Pragmatic” necessity for

Human Survival, and Cross Cultural Science Education is a

beautiful way of the Sensitivity Science Education.

In view of what we are doing nowadays to our Environment

and to our fellow Human beings, I would say that without

Sensitivity, we will not survive the 21st century. For the

sensitive eyes, the bad consequences of the Power Science are

visible almost everywhere. Even if we do not want to see them,

things such as Acid Rains descend

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 5

upon us. Incidences such as Chernobyl happens and force us to

know what we are doing to ourselves.

In the line-like thinking of Power Science, we do not see

the remote consequences of our actions. But the fruits of our

deeds loop around and come back on ourselves.

In that, I am not a Romantic Idealist to advocate the

Sensitivity Science. I have a “Pragmatic” concern about the

future of the World in which our children live or die. Either we

educate ourselves and change to become Caring Beings, or we

annihilate ourselves. It is not possible to evade the choice.

Fortunately, however, we have a marvelous educational

opportunity called Cross Cultural Education.

It gives very good opportunity to Think Twice about the

Power Science that our dominant Culture has been practicing up to

The Cross Cultural Education is one way of giving our

children the opportunity, and a beautiful way of doing the

Sensitivity Science Education. Here, remarkably, we have a

consistency of the means and the aim. We have the way of studying

which cal1s for Sensitivity. And we have the aim that is the

I look upon Cross Cultural Education to be not a “Tokenism”

to satisfy disgruntled minority races, or “Window Dressing” to

soothe the “Guilt” from the colonial oppressions and the racial

discrimination in the historical past. But I consider it as a

Golden Opportunity for every one to learn the way of Survival and

at the same time the way of constructing a beautifu1 Future.

Beyond that, I would like to stress here that this is not a

subject of “social studies”, but of “Science”.

I am not saying this because I am a scientist and wanted to

externalize the power of science. You must realize that I am a

“scientist” only in the Power Science. Among other things it was

the prejudice of the “Power Science” that used to say that Euro

Americans have the Science.

And, I have to learn Cross Cultural Science for my own

sake. And people here are great help to me. I wish I could go

back to school again and experience beautiful education that you

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 6

– – – – – – – –

I add one, perhaps, “Bad” example for the advocacy of Cross

Cultural Science Education. It is from General Relativity.

General Relativity can be viewed as an “art” of how to

connect a small local Linear way of thinking (analogous to making

a short sentence) to the next. The connections of many small

Linear descriptions (analogous to a whole “story” made of many

sentences) make up a Global Geometry which may be “Non-linear”.

General Relativity is concerned with the Whole of the Global

Connections. Needless to say, to make a comprehensible coherent

picture is not a trivial task. Some constructions are beautiful,

The “connected whole” is a “World View”. And among many

ways to make up the “connected whole(s)”, we can study how to

compare various ways of making “connected wholes”. In this sense,

General Relativity is interesting. It resembles “Cross Cultural”

However, as I said before, General Relativity is “perhaps a

bad example”. The trouble with this example from modern physics

is that it is by and large inaccessible to the general public.

There are “popular books” such as The Turning Point by F.

Capra etc. However, ordinary Science Education does not come

anywhere near to the “Way of Thinking” contained in those modern

developments in science. Schools, perhaps unconsciously, teach

the 300 year old physics and waste time in “beating the

established mechanical routines into blank minds of children”

under the name of Science Education. It so happens that the Old

Science also carries the Authoritarian Ideology of that

It also represents the “Alienated” mentality of the 19th

century European Intellectuals. [see] M. Berman. The

Reenchantment of The World.] That Science emerged in the 17th

century as a “Liberation of Thinking” is largely forgotten and

perverted, under the disguise of “Rigorous”, “Exact”, discipline.

Psychoanalysts ought to examine why so many scientists and

science teachers today still maintain the illusion of “rigorous,

exact science” as if they have never heard of the Uncertainty

Principle or Godel’s proof of Incompleteness of Mathematics.

Their quasi-religious belief may be within the Freedom of Belief

allowed by the Constitution, but the Authoritarian posture of

scientists talking down to the

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 7

public, as if they are the guardians of the Absolute Truth, is a

pedagogical disaster in barring the majority population from

access to the modern science.

That I have a considerable difficulty in talking about

fruits of the modern science in terms of “Ways of Thinking”

attests to the failure in Physics Education for which we

physicists are collectively responsible. We have spent Hundreds

of Billion Dollars of tax money, but we have not helped society

with cultural developments in terms of the Ways of Thinking. The

public money is used to edify a small group of specialists and

widen the gap of thinking inequality, not mentioning the North-
South disparity in science-technology and wealth. We ought to

think, for example, why we do not use science to make rudimental

water supply systems available to the poor half of Humanity. It

could be done at a fraction of the cost of sending a school

teacher to Space and getting killed in a Show of National

Superiority. I do not think it is excusable.

One very inexpensive way of introducing New Way of Thinking

to general public is to do Cross Cultural Science. Since most of

the “Sciences” from different cultures are accessible through

non-technical expressions, they are better suited for general

Education. (I fancy that “Hopi Relativity” is just as good in

conveying the main idea as General Relativity which is accessible

only through complicated mathematical manipulations.) That is to

say, we have discovered a mountain of treasures in the Native

Science. I recommend school teachers to seriously look into

Native Science and take advantages of the treasure.

(However, I would caution the teachers to pay proper respect in

exchange, lest be accused of stealing the last and the most

precious treasures of the Natives after taking everything away

from them. One way of expressing respect is to invite Native

Scientists and let them speak, rather than giving an

“Interpretation” to students as if that is genuine Native

Science. And if possible, let students learn from the way the

Natives live with the “Science in their actual life, rather than

substituting an “intellectualized version” for it.)

– – – – – – – –

My story here was perhaps tedious and technical and it was

from the background of the Power Science. But I hope it is of

Thank you for your patient listening.

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 8

[Subnote 1. On Linearity.

“Linear” means “line-like”. When relations between pairs of

two quantities, such as “Input and Output” plotted on a graph

paper appear like lines, the relations are called Linear.

Most relations in Reality, however, are not Linear. Why,

then, do we favor Linearity? The most theories in science are

Linear ones. Economists use Linearized models; Political

Scientists and Politicians talk and think in Linear Language. We

usually think Linear, such as if something is good, then more of

it is better. It is not rare that sick people take more pills,

thinking that the more pills he or she takes, the faster the cure

is, then ends up with an Overdose. Or a man who makes hundred

thousand dollars a year thinking that he would be a twice bigger

man if he could make $200,000 etc.

But, the worship of Linearity is not just silly

superstition in numbers. There is a definite advantage in

Linearity. I cite an example.

Suppose a psychologist or social scientist is faced with an

unknown entity or system named, say, G. How will the scientist go

about knowing what G is?

The first principle of Science is the Principle of “Do

something and see what will happen”.

So the scientist does something, which in psychologist’s

jargon is called “Stimulus”. Sociologists might call it “Input”.

Something happens in Response (X) to the Stimulus (x), or Output

corresponding to the Input. By this, the scientist gets a data

(X) = {G} (x) or x → X

Of course this one data point is not enough for the

scientist to claim “Knowledge” on the entity. The scientists have

to try more Inputs and get Outputs. But if the entity (or system)

is Linear, it is easier to know what Response would be for any

Stimulus. For example, the Linear Entity G would produce a

Response 2X for Stimulus 2x, and 3X for 3x, and so on, i.e.;

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 9

What is more, provided the Entity (System) G is Linear, the

scientist can predict what the Response (Output) would be for an

arbitrary combination of various kinds of Stimulus, say like

(3X + 2Y – Z) = {G} (3x + 2y – z).

This predictability is an enormous savings in the cost of

the research to construct the Knowledge about the Entity (System)

Having this sense of Linearity in mind, one looks into

texts in Physics, Engineering, Economics, etc. One would find

that the majority of Theories are about Linear entities or linear

systems. Texts in Psychology, Sociology, Political Science,

Anthropology etc. are not explicit in what they mean by

“knowledge”. But when they do imply “knowledge”, they are usually

an implicit assumption of Linearity.

Most economic-politico-social policy recommendations from

the Power Science are of the Patch-work type which in effect says

“Granting that all other things stay constant, do x to get the

result X”. This is only justifiable on Linearity Assumption. The

characteristic of Linear Thinking is that it neglects all

complications. It only sees the starting point (the problem as

the initial state) and the desired end point, and finds the means

to connect the two points. It is like drawing a line between two

points without looking at other points around. Perhaps, it is

analogous to shooting an arrow at a target. As such, the

concentration of attention is necessary and it is not a bad thing

In real systems, however, when one thing is changed, all

others change. There would always be the second, third, fourth

order effects, like the ripples created by a stone dropped in a

lake. Linear Assumption is simple and convenient, but it is a bad

“superstition”, if it is worshiped as The Best Science. Yet the

Insensitivity of the Power Science neglects the higher order

Another trick of the Power Science is that, when the

uncertainties in the higher order effects are visible, it goes

for “Short Term” projections and makes decisions on that basis.

It is hoped that the higher order effects would not manifest in a

short time scale taken as the reference frame of the thinking.

Unfortunately, the neglected higher order effects do not

disappear; they “disappear” only in the short-term thinking.

People have to pay for them eventually. A funny thing about this

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 10

is “scientific”. That is the Power Science; it provides an

edifying cover not only for the negligence, arrogance, and

insensitivity, but for the stupidity. I would think that the

Native Science which thinks on a long-term scale would be good

“medicine” for the Power Science.

Non-linear entities or systems are that which cannot be

treated by Linear Theory. That is the definition. Non-linear

entities and systems are nasty, for they defy the simple

“predictability” of the kind illustrated above.

Non-linear systems are “Unpredictable”, which means there

is no possibility of doing the “science” which usually means

“predicting power”. Of course, we can do a modified sense of

“science”. In fact, non-linear physics is now getting

fashionable, where things like “Catastrophe Phenomena” are

What is so-called “Ecology” in biology and geology is

largely confined to Linear cases. Some Biologists and Geologists

are aware that Nature is Non-linear and Catastrophic Instability

— such as mass extinction — is expected. But the prejudice

(or rather “superstition”) of majority of the scientists

demanding “Predictability” for “science” on some emotional ground

does not make the study of Non-Linearity in Nature popular.

As to knowledge in social and Humane areas, their implicit

Linear “Rhetoric” are yet to be recognized. “Causal Relation” is

often nothing more than a Linearized Expression. As a

consequence, people do not know they are assuming Linearity.

Hence, Linear Thinking is prevalent.

I do not think the “Linguistic Philosophers” are even aware

of Non-linearity, except perhaps in Logical Paradoxes. (The

“Paradox of Self-Reference” has a “loop structure” and as such it

is Non-linear. “Circular Argument” is also Non-linear. They

reject it. But interestingly the most “definitions” in sciences

are “circular”. Newton’s Laws of Motion and Darwin’s famous

statement “Survival of the Fittest” are well known examples.

Perhaps, because of these bad cases, philosophers do not like

Non-Linearity, But, their dislike prevents them from serious

studies of Non-Linearity. This is unfortunate.)

However, the Philosophy of Dialectics is a Non-linear one. [See

Thorn cited below] But I doubt Dialecticians themselves such as

Marx — are aware of the Non-linearity.

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science

As to Mathematics of Non-Linearity, see Rene Thom: Structural

Stability and Morphogenesis. Benjamin. 1972. (Thom also had an

interesting thing to say about Math Education, Science 1972.)

Also, there are several texts on Non-Linear Physics. What

is called “Solution” is an unusually stable wave produced by Non-
Linearity. It is to be noted that “Stability” can be a

manifestation of Non-linearity. Non-linearity is not always

unstable and catastrophic. I suspect almost all biological and

social systems (such as human life) is “stable” because of Non-
linearity. They “die”, however, because of the Non-linearity that

maintained them to be stable for a while (quasi-stable).

The escalation of Nuclear Arms race which goes in a

“vicious circle” is an example of bad Non-linear Dynamics. On the

other hand, the “positive enforcement” effects in Education etc.

are also Non-linear Dynamics.

These examples show that Non-Linearity is important and

interesting. But here again, it is too technical to be taught

directly in schools. I would appreciate very much if you could

suggest to me some ways of bringing “awareness” of Non-Linearity

into school science education. Interestingly “Sensitivity” is a

highly Non-Linear Phenomenon. I wish some psychologists would

write about “Non-Linear Dynamics of Mind”. Hegel came close to

doing that, but his intellectual snobbism is too much for popular

reading. Perhaps, Native Science might have good stories to tell

Oct.18, ’87. S. Kounosu Phys. Dept. U. of L.

20 August 1988 Personal Correspondence on Community Culture Healing, Spirit and Science (PDF)

Aug. 20, ’88.

Dear Pam

I write to you again. For your laugh, I quote a joke.

“A famous physicist worried about Library space projected

that, at the present rate of increase in the number of articles

published in Physical Review, they will soon reach a rate which

will have to fill library shelves with the Speed exceeding that

of Light. However, this does not violate the Principle of

Relativity, for the journals contain no Information.

[Physics Today Aug. ’88. P. 9.]

– – – – – – – – –

I have a proposal to make, and I would like to discuss the

matter. How about writing a paper on European and Native

Community/Culture Healing as a Therapy/Medicine? I know I am

trying to push you to do an Academic thing. But, now that you

moved, there is nothing much I can do anyway. So perhaps it is

safe to make a proposal. Besides, I do not know how “Community/

Culture Healing” would fit with what you do on the job. Please

let me know the situation.

The idea came from reading an article by William K. Powers

“Alternatives To Western Psychotherapy: Modern-Day Medicine Man”

mentioned before [In Beyond The Vision U. of Oklahoma Press 1987.

Psychotherapy has Psychoanalysis as a theoretical part, though

the relation of “Theory” and “Practice” contains problems.

Likewise, Native Medicine has Native Science, though the relation

between them may be different from that in European system. But

the Science ought to be relevant and helpful to practice of the

Medicine. In fact, we have been deciphering Native Science from

the Medicine in the traditional culture, as the Science existed

there to deal with problems in life.

The comparison of the complex of science-therapy in Western

Culture to one in another Culture is interesting enough. But I am

not just proposing to make a comparison. Something new is added.

Native Community/Culture is facing new problems stemming from its

encounter with Western Ideology and Technology. The new problems

require new responses. It means more trouble, but that also means

a new development in Science for both sides. As a “Wisdom”,

Native Science needs not to change, but its expressions have to

reflect the changed environment in order to be helpful to the

people. You have been on that task. But if you wish to elaborate

on Native Science at higher and deeper level of

Native Science, working out “practical applications” is one of

the ways to do that. Comparison is a mere entry device.

As “Spirit” is revealed through manifestations, the Science

is learnable through “working it out” (praxis). Writing a paper

is a way of helping people who face up to the problems and

looking for ways of healing. The paper may look “theoretical”,

but it is (i) a report on experiences, and/or (ii) elaboration of

“strategy”. It is not “Wisdom” itself, but it is an intermediate

“translation” in a sense of being an “approach to”, or a “way

to”. Just as we cannot prescribe “Vision”, we cannot describe

“Wisdom”. We can, however, talk about experiences or the

procedure leading up to it.

And, to the extent the problems are brought by “European”

things, what we write have to contain “European” things. That is

the necessity of the circumstance, and also from the work being

“translation”, “interface”, and “praxis in the present world”.

There is an element of “Beating European Intellect at its

own Game”. We might say “If Europeans brought Guns to Natives,

Native Science can shoot the same guns better”, or “If Christians

talk of Love, Native Science does it better”. It is not that

competition is the aim, but the pains and suffering of the people

under “European Power Science” is real — unfortunately we in

bourgeoisie academy do not immediately experience them — and a

way of Medicine/Therapy must be proposed now.

Actually, for this, it probably matters little if it is

called “Native Science”, “Marxism”, or “Born-Again Christianity”.

There are “Natives” colonized all over the World, even in Europe.

In some degree, I have a special interest in Japanese affairs

which do contain “Native Problems”, and you have “Native

Americans’ in the center of your heart, and in that we are

“Racists”. But I do have something beyond that, which has to do

with “People”, “Humans,”, not “Race”. I am not helping Native

Americans as a Race. It makes me feel sad to think, but I stand

outside “Native American Science” — She is your baby. I adore

her, but that is all I can —. At least, I try to avoid becoming

a “Fake Indian”. [I saw an NFB film on Long Lance: “Chief Buffalo


It does give me a pain of being an “Outsider”, forever

segregated and cast away from the happy community of people whom

I care, but I hope I have a spiritual strength to withstand the

alienation. The danger of the alienation becoming a bitterness

and then intellectua1 arrogance is great. But that is where

devices, strategies such as Participatory Research come in. It is

an intellectual thing to do, and as such, it perhaps is not quite


satisfying. If Alcoholism is a problem, Intellectualism is also a


However, I think that there is a “meaning” in both

Alcoholism and Intellectualism. Rejecting or rather pretending

that one is staying clear out of the problems, with righteous

contempt, is not an answer. I would much rather have you drinking

and suffering than being like an angel. For the pain can also be

source of creative energy. The period of Colonialism is not yet

over, and if we are comfortable in the World as it is today,

there is no reason for us to do anything about it. At least, in

that way I can talk with you.

I said the above, because if you are “Perfect Indian”,

“Noble Savage Philosopher”, you would not play with an academic

game like writing intellectual paper. A Japanese proverb has it

that “Great Man is a Useless Man” — nobody can use him, nor

does he use anybody —. But, I would like to drag you down to a

lesser being who suffers pain like “ordinary” people do and

could, at the best, be “useful” to people as such. If there is no

problem, pain, malaise, there can be no Science. Both

Intellectualism and Alcoholism are product/expression of

suffering. I would dare further to say that Spiritualizing is a

“moral equivalent” of Alcoholism.

Now, that has been my excuse to you to make a proposal. For

you to judge whether it is helpful or not, you would ask what it

involves. So I shall explain.

One important thing Powers missed in the article is that

Native Medicine is done as “Communal Affair”, if not “Ceremony”,

whereas Western Psychotherapy is highly individualistic ritual.

That stems from Psychoanalysis being an analysis (theoretical

construct) about the Individual. Freud’s paradigm is to “adjust”

deviant individuals to the given Civilization (*1). C.G. Jung saw

this defect/limitation in Freud’s works. He went to “Collective

Unconscious” etc. to correct the ignorance/ignoring, and made

“Psychoanalysis” useful in “Social Psychology”, “Anthropology”

and “Linguistics”. Jung’s works were closer to Hegelian Field

Dynamics, as a contrast to Newton-Kantian Mechanics of Freud. And

it opened a way to “Cultural Analysis”, supplementing “Social

Analysis/Criticism” of Marx et al. You might say it is

“Environmental Science” in contrast to Individualistic/Atomistic

Science of a single Tree.

(*1) [To be sure, Freud did write Der Zukunft einer Illusion

1927, Das Unbehagen in der Kultur 1930. It is interesting

to note that the English translation of the second book is

“Civilization and Its Discontents”. Freud knew better than


Civilization with Culture. But the title was approved by

Freud. The reason become clear if one reads the book. The

“culture” of Europe in the 20th century is nothing but a

“Civilization” — i.e. Technopolis —. Freud, in his zeal

to establish his science to be an Eternal Truth, totally

ignored History of European Social Technology. (Jung failed

in this respect as well.) It is surprising to see this in

an intellectual circle in which Hegel and Marx were well

known. Perhaps, it was Newton-Kantian blindness to History.

Or, it is because European chemistry (Atomism) was A-
Historical (Non-Dynamical).

It is also interesting to note that, the term “Unbehagen”

is equivalent of French “malaise”, that is more like

“disease”. “Discontent” came from the first title Freud

gave, which was “Das Ungluck”. The translation of the title

is not quite right, but from the content of the book the

English title is just right. That is, Freud failed to treat

the “Disease” of the modern European Civilization in which

he was a part. European Science has had this peculiar

posture of as if God was looking at problems from outside.

Scholars talked as if they themselves had no problem of

their own. A.A. made one progress in this respect in that

they talk of “My problem”. What I like to see is a Science

of “Our problem”.]

However, even Jung did not come to think of “Therapy on

Community”. Social Psychology, Anthropology, or for that matter,

Sociology, Economics, did not think of practice of “Therapy” in

relation to them as “Science”. Marx, Keynes were exceptions. It

was not that Social Scientists did not attempt to influence

Social Policies, or Psychologists did not interfere with

Educational Policies. The relation between these Sciences and

Practices were not only obscured by pretended “Scientific

Objectivity”, or “Value Neutrality”, but also ignored, perhaps,

from their “Static-ism” (inactivism), if not incompetence. They

did not have the degree of relation that physics had with

Industrial applications, and Medical Science had with Clinical


I imagine “Social Work/Welfare” uses existing Social

Sciences as its theoretical grounds (metaphysical axioms and

Rhetoric-Jargons). Yet, I wonder if the relation is clear at all.

Suppose an Economist proved that in a pluralistic society, “the

Value Maximum does not exist”, what change then social

work/welfare as a discipline of practice would undergo? In fact

the proof was given by Arrow in 1940’s (*2), but I am afraid

Scholars in Social Work/Welfare behave as if they are totally

ignorant of implications of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, just

as the

most Natural Scientists are oblivious to Godel’s Incompleteness

Proof. If the Science means anything, one would expect certain

effects from changes in the science to changes in the practice,

at least something comparable to that from Medical Science to

Clinical Practice.

I am not saying every “theory” has to have direct and

immediate effects on practices in therapy/healing. For the case

of Native Communities, even the identification of problems is a

problem for itself , let alone talking of Healing. But then, I

would expect that Native Science is relevant and useful in the

identification (diagnosis/analysis). I also expect the Science to

provide a “Language” by which the problems can be described,

communicated, and efficiently understood, so that people can make

an effective co-operation.

Now, I am quite aware that there are difficulties, say in

the relation between Western Sciences and their therapeutic

practices. There exists no such thing as “Sociotherapy”, so that

I cannot comment on what Social Science does. Incidentally,

Gellner mentioned before [The Psychoanalytic Movement. Paldin

1985.] discussed the problems in Psychoanalysis/therapy.

Gellner, however, took a rhetorical posture of comparing

“Psychoanalysis” to other Sciences, and pretended that other

Sciences, particularly Natural Science, have no such problem. It

is false. There is no “Science” that is free from troubles. Every

one of them has one degree of trouble or another. In fact,

Natural Science escapes the trouble by ignoring — only deals

with simple linearized models —. Even our “Logic” has troubles

when it tries to deal with “dynamics”, beyond its traditional

“static” and “atomistic” territory. [Russell’s Paradox, etc. see

The Mathematical Experience. P.J. Davis, R. Hersh. Penguin 1984

for example.] It appears that Gellner is ignorant about these

problems in Western Science. Unfortunately, this ignorance, or

rather ignoring, about Logical foundation is rather universal

among English speaking “philosophers of science”.

[I picked up from the New book section of our library a

book; Philosophy, Science And Social Inquiry, by D.C.

Philips. It is a neat summary of “British-American

Philosophy Of Science”. There is no mention of the problems

in Logic. It has a chapter on “Neo-Hegelian Critique”, but

there is no discussion of Hegel’s “Logic of Science”.

On the other hand, if we read, say, Paul Ricoeur’s Lectures

On Ideology And Utopia, the whole 19th century German

Philosophy, covered by Marx’s German Ideology, was a

struggle on “Science”. But it is

not recognized by British-American Academia. It appears

that there was an implicit censorship by those who were in

the academic “Empire Building”. They appear to be no

different from Racists and Colonialists.]

What is interesting, however, in Gellner’s book is that

despite his implicit rhetorical assumption, the troubles of

Natural Science come out. His criticisms against Psychoanalysis

being not a science are applicable to Natural Science just as

well. That is why it is worth reading

Of course, Freud failed to achieve his ambitious goal.

Rather, he went back to the level of Newtonian Mechanics, and

treated “Civilization” to be a “State of Technology” in a

society. His therapy was a technology of adapting individuals to

the society dominated by the Technology. It did not come to

Therapy on the Technology itself. Besides, he was a self-centered

S.O.B., of which many books had been written. That was very

common, Ego-Inflating effect of the Competitive Intellectualism

that we are under. I hope efforts such as Participatory Research

would take care of the problem of Intellectual imperialism (or

rather Judeo-Christian Superiority-Persecution Complex) in


In this respect, it is interesting to note that Powers

reports on “Abdication” (p.137 point 7). European way of seeing

this is “Loss of Power”. But, I suspect rather it means “retiring

from responsibility obligation”. “Power” in Native lingo probably

means “Function”. One who “has” a Power is obliged to perform the

function. I wonder, in this sense, what “power” university

professors have.

I ought to mention here that Marx also failed in reaching a

“Science” — Marx had never come to elaborate what he meant by

his “Science”, though he was very proud of saying “Scientific

Socialism”, “Proletariat shall have Science to Liberate

themselves”, etc. —. Marx failed to do “Philosophy of

Technology”, but did only “Mechanics of Power”, and consequently

failed to help the construction of the “Science” that was

expected for the Oppressed to develop.

What you want to do in the name of Native Science is what

Marx, Freud, Jung et al. failed to achieve. Therefore, if you

make mistakes here and there, you have nothing to be ashamed of.

Mistakes will hurt you, but that is all. The important thing is

that you pointed the direction, a Vision/Dream/Prophecy.

[You might think I am unduly hard on you, but

actually it is you who picked such a difficult task. It is

as if you are saying you like to jump into a volcano. I

push you over the cliff, because you are standing at the

edge. Afterwards, I and friends of yours will erect a

gravestone there, inscribed as “Here once stood a brave


I would go on further to say Native Science is a way to

“Wisdom”, not the “science” of the European sense. And if it is

“Wisdom”, it has to be in a Community/Culture, not property of

one individual, however genius you are. It can only be developed

by “History”. All we can do is the task of Midwife. And you need

co-operation of many people, and communities (Participatory

Research?). What I am proposing you to write is not Native

Science itself , but merely one among many “about Native Science

— something like “Comparison of What Native and European

Sciences would say about Community Healing/Therapy.” —.

Richard Gwyn, writing on the crushed “Prague Spring” 20

years ago, says: “The real cost of that smashing of a mailed fist

into a gentle smiling face has been an intangible one. The

Czechoslovak sickness of today is neither economic nor political

but is psychological; it can only be described as

institutionalized immorality”. [Leth. Herald. Aug 23.] If one

says this about Czechoslovakia, what must one say about The First

Nations of America? Is it Institutionalized Immorality? And if

so, how does one go about Healing it?


Sam K.

(*2) As to K.J. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, see Social Choice

And Individual Value. John Wiley 1951. Cowles Foundation

Monographs vol. 12.

My Economist friend referred me to Q. James, Saposnik, and

Ruben. General Equilibrium And Welfare Economics but I have

not read this.

The main point of Arrow’s Theorem is that “Values” cannot

be ordered in a linear hierarchy (in Boolean Lattice). If a

set of propositions does not form a Boolean Lattice, the

Classical Logic cannot be applied. For Non-Boolean set, the

Probability Calculus becomes unworkable, Quantum Logic is

Non-Boolean. It creates linguistic situations where The

Principle of Exclusion of the Middle breaks down


Principle). A Dutch mathematician E. Brouwer talked about

this problem in 1920-30s.

But, as far as I know of, there has been no Social Science

built upon explicit basis of Non-Boolean Logic. There have

been suggestions that Zen philosophy is non-Boolean, but I

have not seen any serious writing about this. There is also

such a thing as “Fuzzy Logic”. But I see no sign of it

applied to Socia1 Sciences.

I would like to ask you, or to Woody, if Quantum Logic

(Non-Boolean Linguistic Structure) can be found in Native

narrations. I am looking for cases where “Either/Or”

propositions get into clear trouble.

As to Quantum Logic, I enclosed some references. But they

perhaps require some more explanations and elaborations to

make it relevant to Cultural talks.



Native American Science, I hope, stands on “Will To Love/Grace”.

Actually, Science has all three phases of “Will” (Hope, Aspiration, Desire, Value, Ideal, Idea, Purpose, Theory, Achievement, etc.), “Becoming” (Process, Means, Technology, Know-How, Manipulation, Practice, etc.), and “Being” (Fact, What is, What is given, Existence, Condition, Environment, etc.) But in the Western sense, the “Will” part in Science has been hidden or even denied in the name of “Value Neutrality”, or “Objectivity”. Only guys like Husserl, Heidegger (Phenomenologists) took issue with this aspect of Science.

To be sure, if you equate “Reason”, “Rationality”, “Intelligence” with “Science”, then the story is different in contexts like “Reason and History”, “Theory and Practice” etc. there have been many arguments. But, Philosophers in English speaking countries used not to understand them to have anything to do with “Science”. When one is to talk about “Will” in relation to “Science”, one has to take “Science” in wider sense. If one does, then Hegel, Nietzsche, et al. were, in fact, talking about “Philosophy of Science”. (A. Whitehead is an exception).

Now it appears that things are changing. Gradually, Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx, Husserl, Heidegger, et al — the whole German Philosophy of Science — are revived even in American Academia. In terms of “Sociology of Science”, the influence of Frankfurt school on “Science” is coming into the U.S. (Habermas, Ricoeur, et al.) Canada is lagging behind. They dare not say anything until some big names at Oxford or Cambridge start saying things. That is from the “Colonial Mentality” of Canadian Academics. They wait for big Bandwagons to come and offer a ride.

You might try Name Dropping. It is not effective to try justifying and defending Native Science. Instead, you might have to argue that if White Culture refuses to learn Native Science, the world will be destroyed. Just as the missionaries did to natives up to this time, you tell them you want to save their souls, and see how they react.

Whatever anyone says, Love and Care of Gaia/Tree is a Science. [At least it is no less a Science than the Thirst for Power and Greed for Material Possession are Science.] This alternative science may not be suitable for organizing industries and exploiting nature and people. It may not help the present system of Political Economy and its Ideology. But it is necessary wisdom for survival at least, if it fails to reach “Grace”. In a sense, it is more complex and difficult, because this science does not ignore the “Will” part. It does ask what it means to “know”. That, however, makes it more interesting. At any rate, there are reasons for me to write like mad. I may be a compulsive writer, but I cannot write fast enough for the needs.

[I wanted to write to you about an article; “Alternative To Western Psychotherapy: The Modern-Day Medicine Man” by William K. Powers (from Beyond Vision U. of Oklahoma Press 1987.) and a book I mentioned to you before The Psychoanalytic Movement by Ernest Gellner (Paladin 1985.)

I think there are parallels among connections of “Psychoanalysis-Therapy”, “Social Theory/Ideology-Social Policy/Welfare”, “Science-Production”, “Education-Culture”, and “Native Medicine-Community”. Patterns and problems in them may be comparatively identified. But, I could not even start on it as yet.]

Now you know why I am happy to help you. Whether you need or not, I will pursue alternative science in one way or another. You owe me nothing. Rather, I am thankful that you give me the opportunity and motive. I have “means” to complete the “perfect crime”. That is beautiful, if not “graceful”.

I know you have to do things within a frame related to Native Welfare. The second gateway is Native Education which Leroy probably does. I do Peace Science. The fourth one is Feminist Science, for which I will find someone, somewhere.

Things already start happening. Don’t be too defensive. The World is waiting for you. All you have to do is to tell what you are dreaming about or suggest the direction of the Spirit. Once you do that, you will be surprised to find many helpers. Close your eyes and jump off the bridge! At least you get to somewhere.


Sam K.

Part II: Love Science

Part II. Love Science.

5. I have talked about Power Science. It is easy to talk of how powerful Science_Technology is. It is also easy to talk of how dangerous Science-Technology is and go into gloom and doom. If you are typical of European intellectual — the ones who are “Educated” in European Power Science — you might think of the situation in a “Dialectics” of two oppositions. It came from the religious tradition of thinking things in “Good/Evil” antagonism. Science does that in terms of “Atom/Void”, which is the prototype of “Ego/Environment”. In schools, I observe a prevalent pattern of thinking which goes by “Teacher/Student” antagonism, which is enforced by “Those who have Knowledge/those who are ignorant”. Pardon me to say this, but that is the Missionary mentality. It is intellectual colonialism that a Kipling poem “The Whiteman’s Burden” expressed. At any rate, the picture/metaphor of Two In Opposition is a powerful image, but too simple to get us anywhere.

So let me introduce a slightly improved picture/metaphor/map about the situation. By doing so, we are taking one step into and actually doing a bit of Love Science that I am going to explain to you. Interestingly, this came from Indian Science that I would like to mention later.

The picture/metaphor/map is not perfect, but helps us to find a way out of the Antagonistic Way of Thinking. It is very simple. Namely, picture in your mind a circle and divide it into 4 sectors. It looks like:

Power Science \\ Power Elite

Recognized Authority\\Dominant Male

Edified Intellect\\Growth Economy


Love Science\\The Exploited

Un-Recognized Intelligence\\The Oppressed

Life in Practice\\Subjugated Female/Environment

6. I have put in a few words in the map to illustrate what I am going to talk about. But please notice the Form/structure first. The Form (format) is a circle containing 4 things. This is a way to avoid Two in Opposition. I intend to do “Multi-lectics” instead of “Dia-lectics”. The Form can also be called “Matrix Form” in a mathematical jargon, as a contrast to the simple Linear Form comparing object A and object B. The “Mat” of the “Matrix” is “Mat” of “Mather”. If I may, I like to call it “Matalectics”. “Lectics” is a way of talk, and it came from narrating legends.

By drawing a circle around the 4 things, I am indicating that they are there in relations. In particular, I am saying “Love Science” has always been in existence. It is just that formal text in Physics failed to mention it, or rather the “Science Education” did not wish for you to know about it.

In elementary school and junior high, I always notice how students are eager to learn. If we define “Science” to be “Ability/Competence to Learn”, those children are geniuses. They learn better because they Love to Learn. The way the eagerness and ability to learn get killed as they go up grades in school education is a sad scene, and I would very much like to talk with Educators about the tragedy. But, before that, let me identify what I mean by “Love Science”.

In a small book, The Limits of Science, Peter Medawar talks about “What is Science”. One story that this distinguished Nobel Laureate Biologist narrates is about a house wife who is confronted with a breakdown of her electric home appliance. He says that the house wife who looks around the toaster, locates a broken wire and fixes it is doing “Science”. I agree. That is a beautiful example of Science. But, I also notice that she is not “Recognized” as doing science. Nobody would call her a Scientist and pay premium salary. Why not? Medawar is totally blind to this social “Class Distinction” implicit to honor titles like “Scientist”. How come a super-intelligent scientist such as Dr. Medawar can be blind to the Class Distinction, and in a nation notorious for its acute Class Consciousness at that? That is the problem of “non-recognition”.

One more example. In hospitals, it is often an experienced Nurse that tells young interns what to do. But it so happens that the Nurses are paid far less than the Doctors. The reason is, I presume, the Doctors have gone through years of Formal Education and know “Science”. Whereas, Nurses do not know “Science”, though they may have vastly superior “Practical Knowledge” gained from their experiences.

Actually, if they ever do anything creative, even hard-nosed scientists do Learn things just the same way the elementary school children and nurses learn. The way they go about doing their science is very “Emotionally Involved” and they have “Sensual” contact with Nature. It is a passionate Love Affair. They experience intense Pleasure doing their stuffs. You may have experiences of thinking about Woman or Man in your life os intensely that nothing else in the World mattered. That is no difference from what creative scientists do. It is dangerous, and I am not saying all scientists do that. In fact, 99% of professional scientists are more likely “laboring” through their job, just as alienated as production line workers are.

If you read Max Weber’s “Science As A Profession” and “The Protestant Ethics And The Spirit Of Capitalism”, you would probably understand the sense of the “Alienation” in the “Professionalized Science”. The feeling is strangely very similar to the one we get from reading Death of a Salesman or the like. [See also: A. Mitzman. The Iron cage – A Historical Interpretation of Max Weber.] So that the scientists have to maintain some personal sensual satisfaction in some ways. Some opt out for “Power Trip”. As Henry Kissinger said, “Power is the best aphrodisiac”, and it is very sensual stuff anyway.

It is just that in the formal discourse of science, and in teaching in particular, the Sensual, Love Affair part is not mentioned –Scientists are forced to act like Macho guys. And science teachers are, perhaps, afraid that showing Human Emotions in class rooms is “Unscientific”. It is a Taboo. So it is not “Recognized”.

You are not Vainglorious persons, and think that “Recognition” is not a big deal. You know what you did and can be happy with it, regardless if society grants a Recognition or not. I admire you for that.

7. But there is a catch. As Feminist critics of science pointed out, “To Recognize” is “To Know”. Epistemology has to do with “Recognition”. Besides, “Science” is not a private knowledge, but it represents the Intelligence of a Culture/Society as a whole. What is not recognized by a Culture/Society cannot be the Knowledge that acts as the “common ground/reason”, so that people can organize co-operation on the basis of it. What is not recognized is not “legitimate” to have a “social efficacy”. It is like a beautiful Color that you saw, but you have no way of telling your friends about it. Or it is like UFO that you have seen, but you keep it to yourself. Our society cannot make an appropriate response to the things it does not recognize. The chances are that when a society denies recognition, usually it actually “knows” but is repressing it with a great energy cost. As a consequence, society tends to make a wrong response to the thing it denies.

In the history of science, there were many cases of non-recognitions. Things that do not sit well with the dominant Paradigm of the time are always suppressed from “knowing”. You might have heard that people at the time of Galileo Galilei thought that the Earth is flat. Well, it so happened that some 100 years before Galileo, Christopher Columbus knew that the Earth is round, and on the basis of that knowledge he sailed across the Atlantic Ocean and got to the America. People on street actually knew the round Earth. It was only official scientists and philosophers who did not know it, because their Text which they had to uphold as “Truth” and “Authority” did not say so.

If you believe that Science is Powerful and Cut-and-dry hard-nosed stuff, you learn to ignore all “human frailties”. All human traits, such as foibles, sensuality, passion, pride, love, enjoyment, fun, pleasure, adventure, groping for unknowns, wonderment about mysteries, etc. are “By Definition” not parts of the Science as such. The are not recognized, repressed out of consciousness, intellect. If you keep that up, very soon you would learn not to see, feel. That is what happened to mediaeval scholars and scientists, and we can be just as well.

The “non-recognition” is the key to the repression, oppression, and prejudices against women, the poor, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, and Natives under Colonial Domination. That is, one who does not see the existence of Love Science in the Matrix picture cannot see the existence of the Oppressed, Exploited either, let alone seeing the four in relation.

It is far from innocent. I believe German intellectuals who claim that they did not know the infamous Concentration Camps during WWII. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, they would not “recognize” what was happening.

And, it is very likely that we are blind to certain things we do not feel easy about. What is more, if you are “sensitive”, chances are that you get hurt. You sense that you are vulnerable and ephemeral. You do not feel like a Macho Hero. The you lose out in competitions. So you do not like to “know”. Rather, we like to know something that makes us feel “Powerful” and “Invincible”. We say, before knowing anything “What’s in it for me”. That is our usual epistemological stand.

8. I did not give any “definition” of “Love Science”. It is because “Love Science” is not “Deductionist Science”. Rather it is a matter of recognition that you give to your Love Science that you have been doing. That is, seems to me, the only way to “know” Love Science.

If that is difficult, there is a neat way. That is, we can look into how children do their “science”. Give them a recognition they deserve. By doing so, we also give a recognition to our learning. So both get recognition.

On CBC news, I heard of a 12 year old boy who is studying the local rail road. It was news from a small community in Newfoundland where the Rail Company is about to pull out rail service. He thinks that is a disaster and tries to find a way to save the communities linked by the rail road. The way this kid is going about studying the matter is very impressive. I think people who listened to the news felt a fine scientist there. I do not mean the statistical numbers that the kid collected or the notes that he kept writing. I mean the care that this boy is extending to the lives of people in the communities around. That is remarkable.

And, I do not overlook that fact that people, who recognized a scientist in the boy, must have known what “science” is to recognize it. That is, they also learned science that they had. They might not have had chance to exercise their science, but now that they “discovered” it, they can do it too. And by doing, they would learn more.

The essence of science is not in “knowledge”, but in “how to learn”. Once known it is a matter of “history” to record, not a matter of science. In a peculiar social circumstance, our science is developed to be an official record keeper on “Knowledge Claims” very much like what the Patent Office do —. But, I think such is an anomaly that our egoistic competition for power created. Love Science as the communal and environmental intelligence is emerging now to correct such an anomaly.

If we must have a “definition” of Love Science, we can say it is learning from care and for understanding of relations among lives and natural and human environment.

It is also an “empowerment” (though I do not like this word) of people to liberate themselves, in a sense people recognize what ability they have in themselves.

Another neat way of learning Love Science is to look for Native Science in Native Way of Life. To be sure, I do not know Native Science. I am not making any knowledge claim. I was lucky to find some friends to go along in an adventure into unknowns. Interestingly, however, I did find very sophisticated pieces of science. The 4  element Matrix way of thinking I used in the above is one of them (with a bit of my interpretation which may well be wrong).

I also find that the notion of Space-Time is different and interesting. This is something to do with what American Linguist Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir found in their studies on Hopi and Navajo Languages known as “Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis” on the Language — how people speak reflects how people think —. Surprisingly, Hopi and Navajo have a Relativistic Thinking. I think they are ahead of Einstein in that they appear to have a Space-Time Geometry that includes “Becoming” part, along with “Being Part”. It is “Existentialistic” as well as “pragmatic”. It is fascinating to study their Science, for it suggests a way of overcoming the dialectical opposition of “Space-Time” and “Existence” (Object-Being). I am thinking that this “Relativity” might work better in dealing with Human-Environment relation/dynamics than the way of European Science which is developed for power of production.

[Remember Wayne Gretzky’s Super-Relativistic Map? Native Hunters used to make Maps before their expeditions in the form of “Dreams”, or in “Vision Seeking”. You can see this in the book, Dreams And Maps by Hugh Brody (NAS text). You also recall the famous “I have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King Jr. The Dream is a Map.]


On Science: Power/Love // The Dominant/The Repressed

For Education Seminar

On Science: Power/Love // The Dominant/The Repressed

1. It is well known that just before his death, Einstein talked about a necessity of changing “The Way of Thinking”. That was some 35 years ago. He warned that while everything else changed since two explosions of Atomic Bombs, our way of thinking had not changed. And as the consequence, we are drifting towards our own annihilation by the power of our own science. He meant our way of science has to be changed. His saying is famous, but so far we have failed to heed his warning.

Today, the danger of all-out Nuclear War between the two superpower nations has somewhat receded. But, we have not eliminated the possibility of Nuclear Holocaust. And, we have problems of Air and Water Pollutions, Acid Rain, Waste Disposal, and accelerated destruction of Natural Environment, all thanks to the rapid developments in our Science-Technology. We have come to suffer increasing Stress, Tension, Anxiety and Alienation in our society. Despite Economic developments, the gap between the Poor and the Rich is widening. We have now Permanent unemployment as a part of our economic structure, demoralizing young generation into despair. Economic inequality, internal to our own country as well as in international sense is reaching a degree that can be called criminally immoral.

We may not think of ourselves as privileged, but Canadians are within the top 10% of the richest nations and the fact that we are in a university places in the top 10% of Canadians. That puts us in the richest 1% of the Humanity. The poor half of the Humanity live with an annual income less than $500. We are the “Yuppies”. Yet we cannot escape the problems of the World today.

Even if we think of Education to be the means to attain “Good Life” in personal sense, let alone thinking of Education for a better life of Humanity as a whole, we are failing. The warning of Einstein still stands like a bad prophecy. Einstein meant “Science” to be the “Way of Thinking” that has to be changed. But we have failed to do so. Perhaps, that is why Educators are concerned about Science (and Technology), and that is where “Love Science” comes in [*1]

2. But, you might ask what is wrong with “Science”. Did it not work wonders? Let us think about this, for answering this question is one way to understand that our science is “Power Science” and also we may pick up some clues as to how to change that.

Let me take the “Progress” of science-technology for example, and talk about it a bit. In the past 400 years or so, the progress was fantastic and it brought a general improvement of Physical Health standard. In industrialized countries, it helped the peasant class, at least some of them in the class, to climb out of the life of heavy physical labors and created the “middle class”, if not “affluent” consumers. This came about because our “Power Technology” provided the means to convert and substitute the Fossil Energy for Human Muscle Power. The fossil energy had been accumulated and stored on the Earth for the past hundreds of millions of years. It was just sitting there. To exploit it was a very “clever” move, as I shall explain below.

Thanks to the free gift of Fossil Energy, we, at least some of us, are liberated from heavy physical labors to do things like science. (Please remember that we are the top 1% of the Humanity, and ones who have Time to think. The rest of Humanity hardly have the “Luxury” of thinking. That puts us in a certain obligation.) And, at the same time, in order for the Progress of Technology to continue, Science as its Infrastructure had to be developed. This made up a “Positive Feedback Loop that can be nicknamed “Vicious Circle” and it took off and escalated. We call this phenomenon Industrial-Scientific Revolution. To be sure, for the Industrialization to advance, other Infrastructures, such as organizational management, systems of market distribution and government control had to be developed. The emergence of modern Nation-State and Colonialism coincided with the Industrial Revolution, not by chance but by necessity. Modern School Education system was also a product of the historical time. The development of Science was only a small part of the huge social movement as such.

3. However, the concentrated massive power is the characteristic of Industry. for an illustration, let us look at Energy Economy, (Physical Power Economy). In the U.S. and Canada, the average Energy Consumption per capita is like 10 tons of Coal Equivalent per year. In terms of “Human Power” unit, this amount is about 300 “Human Power-Year”. That is to say , we have 300 slaves working for each of us. This is the reason why we have only 4% of working population in agriculture and we can still have plenty of foods.

Of course, we only use about 1/3 of that power for production of things and efficiency is low like 10%. Nonetheless; we are supported by the Fossil Power Input, equivalent of 10 very diligent slaves for each of us in average. But the labor force working in the primary energy production sector is less than 1% of the total. That is to say, the concentration of the energy sector is such that one person can provide for energy needs of 100 other workers. This is an example of “Concentration” of Power just as Nuclear Bombs are. (Every one manpower invested in primary Energy Industry is returned some 10,000 manpower equivalent of “raw” Energy. Unfortunately, this will not last too long.)

Number of active Physicists in North America is about 50,000. Scientists and Engineers combined, we may have 750,000. That is about 0.4% of the total population. They are the “Producers” of the “Science-Technology” as the infrastructure of the industry and the rest are the passive “Consumers” of the science-technology as such. [*2]

4. Thus, you might wonder if Public Education System needs to care about Science Education at all. It might make sense to have specialized schools for scientists and engineers — like “Military Schools” and let them concentrate on Science Education. Even if there is a failure rate of 80%, the Lethbridge School District needs only one Science Education Class for each grade, and the rest of the children may be spared of the pain, frustration and humiliation of taking Science-Math courses which they hate anyway. As far as the Science that is needed for Production Industry is concerned, that would be sufficient.

If so, is it not a waste of time, money, and manpower to try “Ramming Physics down the throats” of children who are going to be passive consumers of “science” as such? In terms of economic efficiency, University of Lethbridge need not have a Physics Department. It is a lot economical to pay the specialized students to go to “The Western Canada Federal Industrial Science University” where Research in such Science can also be concentrated. (U.S.S.R. seems to practice this.) Science is often said to be “universal” and “International”. If so, why not let a few American Elite Institutions for science-Technology take care of all North American needs in this regard?

At any rate, unless one is going to be a Hard-Hat Scientist or Engineer, why should anybody know anything about Science of that sense?

I ask the above questions to you, for I hope you would think about what “Science” means to you, What Values Science has, other than being an Infrastructure to Production Industry.

Your answers to the questions, I think are keys to the fundamental question of Science Education, and ways to respond to Einstein’s warning.

[*1. Historical note.]

I quoted Einstein’s statement made in 1954. But a long time before that the questions about “Science” and its relations with “Labor”, “Industrial Production”, “Power” and “Love” were raised by the 18th and 19th century Utopian thinkers.

F.E. Manuel. Utopian Thought In The Western World. (Harvard U. Press 1979. Leth. Pub. Lib. 335.02.M.) has chapters titled “New Face of Love”, “The triumph of Love”, etc. referring to Count Claude Heri de Saint-Simon (1790-1825), and Francois Marie Charles Fourier (1772-1838).

You find in the book that these philosophers dealt with problems of “Science” and “Love”, and rightly or wrongly made concrete proposals for Education so as to make an ideal Society. Interestingly, at first Saint-Simon was a believer of Science and sought salvation of humanity in Science. But he soon came to criticize the failures of “scientists” already some 200 years ago. He saw that scientists were no more than servants to Industry.

If you read on to Robert Owen and Karl Marx et al who followed, you find a long history of the unresolved struggle about “Science” relative to “Power” and “Love”.

As to Historical Development of “Masculine Science”,  Brian Easleea Witch Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy, and Evelyn Fox Keller Reflections on the Gender and Science offer analyses.

As to Ideological Struggles about “Human Science” since the time of Marx, Paul Ricoeur’s Lectures On Ideology and Utopia gives a philosophical analysis.]

[*2. Canada has 1.2 Scientists & Engineers per 1,000 population. U.S. has 3.2, Germany (w) 2.1, Japan 4.3 (1981-82). About 40% of the U.S. scientists and Engineers are employed in the military-industrial complex, which makes the number to be about 1.9.

It is also known that some 1/2 of the US graduate students in science and Technology is imported from abroad. The science Education there, even for a limited purpose of supporting Industry, is failing, despite many “Tinkering” attempted on Science Curriculum. A recent joke (half serious) is that in order to free Male scientists to do SDI, science Education has to attract more Females who could replace Males in Science Teaching. That Teaching is considered to be “less important” than Research is the current ideology in the North America, and the joke carries the obvious Male Chauvinism.]


F. Cottrell. Energy And Society.

J.M. Fowler. Energy and the World.

E. Shumacher. Small Is Beautiful.

B. Ward. Spaceship EArth.

J. Ellul. The Technological System.

A. Toffler. The Third Wave.

D. Bell. The coming of Post-Industrial Society.

K. Polanyi. The Great Transformation.

E.P. Thompson. The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays.

F. Capra. The Turning Point.

M. Bellmann. Reenchantment of the World.

B. Easlea. Witch Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy.

E. Fox Keller. Reflections On the Gender and Science.

P. Medawar. The Limits of Science.

M. Weber. Science As a Profession. (in Gerth and Mills. From Max Weber.)

H. Marcuse. One Dimensional Man.

Eros and Civilization.

M. Foucault. Archaeology of Knowledge. Power/Knowledge

F.W. Manuel. Utopian Thought in the Western World.

P. Ricoeur. Lectures on Ideology and Utopia.

I. Illich. Shadow Work.

P. Freire. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

P. Colorado. “Science: A Way Of Knowing – AWay of Life” (in Child Welfare Needs. Indian Association of Alberta.)

Appendix to Part I.

On Tunnel Vision, Peripheral Vision, A-Life-Through-Doing-One-Thing-At-A-Time, Columbus’s Vision, and Dream Map In Your Head.

There are differences in Ways of Thinking, (Levels of intelligence, or Quality of Mind, etc.) But it seems that people tend not to see them. Using familiar examples, I would like to demonstrate the differences. The examples are also useful in distinguishing Power Science and Love Science. Besides, for teachers to know the differences in the ways mind works may have a pedagogical value. Let me cite 3 examples.

(A). Wayne Gretzky is said to be capable of knowing what his teammates are doing while chasing a puck towards the goal. The defense men of the other team try to block his advance not only by physical presence but try harassment, so that Gretzky may be disoriented. In this sense Hockey is different from Baseball. It is just as a “mental” game as a game of physical power. You like Hockey because it is a complex game, besides being a Powerful and Exciting one.

I do not know much about Hockey, but I count on your knowledge to try illustrating what it means to have a different way of thinking , or different levels of intelligence. Help me.

My question is this. How does Wayne know and keep track of his teammates while concentrating on the puck in front of him?

Chasing the puck is a “Goal Oriented” task. Your eyes are fixed on the Object. You are moving the Object to the Goal with all of your Power and don’t have time to look around. You have a Tunnel Vision to do that. That is the situation Newtonian Mechanics deals with. The motion is from a point A to point B. Yu force the way through. That is the way Power Science thinks; Max Weber in Science As A Profession, talked about this and said “If you are not willing to put on Blinders, you’d better go see a movie (i.e. you are not cut out to be a scientist/scholar)” If you have a purpose, you better concentrate on it. “One Track Mind” is the must in science. You understand that.

But that is not quite enough. Gretzky has something else in his mind. Remind you that just breaking through the defense is difficult enough. You do not have too much room left in your mind to think about something else, like which movies to go, etc.

Yet, it is said that Gretzky has a kind of “Moving Map” in his head and know where his teammates are at that moment and also anticipate where they are going to be. He also knwos defensemen of the other team are coming at him and about to give him a hard body check into the side wall. The Map is not the usual static one at a given time, but a dynamic one that contains anticipated Future, or the “Flow of the Game”. In that sense, the Map is a Relativistic one.

[I do not know, but I do not think Gretzky has ever taken Relativity course. Here, what is important is not whether Gretzky knows Relativity in formal sense or not. What is important is that, as educators or educators-to-be, you recognize it. The role of educators is not “teaching” anything like Relativity, but to recognize it in actions of people and encourage them. Any mediocre person can read physics texts to a roomful of students and think it “teaching”. To recognize what students are doing takes more understanding than just ability to read off texts.

Particularly, I think this ability to “recognize” what is in children is an absolute necessity, if one wishes to get involved in Cross Cultural Education.]

The “Map” is imaginary thing in his head. And I do not know how he carry and maintain it. He is not looking around. It seems that he make up the Map by Periphery Vision, plus perhaps by Intuition, Instinctive Feeling, or Dream-like Fantasy.

As to Periphery Vision, we know one thing. That is, even the 100 yard sprinter running gets the sense of his Body Balance from Periphery Vision. The sprinter has a Tunnel Vision as to the goal and the track in front of him or her. What the sprinter is doing is “One Track Minded” thing. But the Tunnel Vision on an object does not tell how one’s body is oriented. It is the Periphery Vision that tells your body orientation relative to the Environment that you are Not Looking At.

If you make an analogy here, you can sense what I am driving at. The way our Power Science and Technology do things is very much like the 100 yard race. Things are done with a Tunnel Vision, often in competitions with something or somebody. That is, Power Science-Technology has not Periphery Vision to sense its own orientation. The Natural and Social Environment is ignored.

What I am insinuating here is that Love Science is like Periphery Vision. Gretzky got it.

(B) To illustrate the Power of having a Map further, let me cite a historical event. This has to do with how Christopher Columbus got to America. In a sense, this is a bad example in that the Power was used to help build European Colonies. But the Map of Columbus is also a dramatic example of the fundamental method of modern science that I cannot resist citing.

Before Columbus’ time, European navigators were sailing along coastline using landmarks. The mode of operation is characteristically “One Thing At A Time”. This science of navigation was good enough for them to navigate around Mediterranean. It was powerful enough for them to go along African coast to its southern tip. They used to make maps with Landmarks. But to copy maps, and other reasons, they start drawing lines on maps. You note that these lines are not “Real”. They do not exist out on the ocean. They only exist on maps that human minds made. They are mental artifacts.

But the imaginary lines had a great effect on the way people think and act. Once lines are on the map, it is a matter of time for some navigator to think of sailing along a line, like “go on East Wind 10 knots for 2 days” and trace the course on a map to keep track of where the ship is. In fact, Spanish navy perfected the method to locate a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic shortly before Columbus’s time. Columbus learned that. Combined with the knowledge-vision that the Earth is round — and fortuitously there was an error that made the Earth look half its size —, Columbus came to see that India was just 40 days of sailing to the West.

Of course, only Columbus came to have the Map-Vision. Navigating on Imaginary Line was a new science, and others, even a map was shown, would not have had confidence in it anyway. The story says that Columbus had a mutiny on his ship, but since crews did not know how they could set a course to go home, he was not killed.

In a way, the lines are the Man-made Rules imposed on the Nature, and imaginary ones at that. Yet the Imaginary lines imposed on Space-Time was the foundation of modern Geometry and Physics. From that Descartes’ Analytical Geometry emerged, though the story is that Descartes had a Dream in which and Angel appeared and told him how to start New Science. Newton was very much impressed by Descartes’s Geometry and wrote his Mechanics emulating Descartes. Einstein came some 250 years after Newton and negated him, but he also used an Imaginary Map, i.e, Geometry.

Now the point of narrating this story of Imaginary Map is that Gretzky is doing precisely what Columbus, Descartes, Newton, Einstein did. He overcomes the Tunnel Vision by having a Map in his head. By the help of Imaginary Map, which he is not even conscious of, he can do something beyond “reacting” to the immediate situation in front of him, and go beyond the level of “intelligence” that is characteristic to the mode of operation called “One Thing At a Time”.

(C) When you become a grade one teacher, you have some 30 children each doing different things, each having peculiar problems, crying and laughing and some have to go to the bathroom. As a teacher, you care for each one and every one all the time. You know what each of them is doing and what they are about to do. If you think Gretzky is a miracle, you are a miracle.

How do you do that? Your answer probably is “One Thing at a Time”. After all, that is the most any human being can do. But what about your Periphery Vision? While you are wiping off Jony’s bloody nose, you are aware Betty and Rosy are pulling each other’s hair.

On the top of it, you have a Map in your Head called Lesson Plan or Day Plan. The Map is like Ideal Dream and never works under daylight. Nonetheless, without the Map, you would not be able to keep your sanity.

When you said “I do one thing at a  time, and just keep going”, you are not telling the truth. You do not work like Scientists in teaching grade one. You have to care about everything at the same time. But you somehow keep your physical and mental balance relative to, or by the help of the imaginary Map you have in your head. It is just that you are not “Consciously” thinking about it when you are rushing Nick to the bathroom.

What a human mind can do is amazing. Consciously thinking is just a minor insignificant fragment. Our “Rational Thinking” cannot do that, so we say “ONe Thing At A Time”. And we imagine we are running in a Maze with a Tunnel Vision. (The reason why Maze is confusing and disorienting is that we do not see the whole picture. That is when we have no Map. We do not have Environment to know where we are and guide our way out.)


I think you know what I am talking about. When you are in the world of children, you no longer have the luxury of having a Tunnel Vision on one object called “children” or “Class”. You are in it. They are all around you. Perhaps, you feel as if you are trapped in a Maze and you say to yourself that all you can do is to do “One Thing At a Time”. But actually, you do have Peripheral vision, Environmental awareness, Dynamic Map, and are performing a miracle.

“Love Science” to me is to recognize that miracle of yours, feel dignified and enjoy it.

***I add here two notes. (i) Today, Science is fragmented and no longer has a Vision-Map. It is pursuing “One Thing At A Time” with a tunnel vision. I am afraid, Science today, in that sense, has retrogressed, (ii) The Science of “visionary-Map” navigation was practiced by Polynesians long before Europeans came to know it. Native Hunters in the North woodlands also knew the Science, as Hugh Brody’s book Maps and Dreams (a NAS text) illustrates.


Notes On The Epistemology of Discrimination And The Epistemology of Liberation. Ver. Fall 1987.

Study Notes in NAS 2000. Native Philosophy

Gall 1987. S. Kounosu

Notes ON the Epistemology Of Discrimination And the Epistemology of Liberation.

I. The Problems of Social Recognition.

1. In most any society, there are Class Distinctions, and therefore there has to be Discrimination. Hence, even a famous Physicist, Michael Faraday had to practice saying, “Rain in Spain falls mainly on plain” before he was admitted into Royal Society London.

Speaking the “Proper English” was a mark of the Upper Class in British Society. That even the reputed Scientific Society had to insist on what we might today consider “Snobbism” is not unique to British. And preoccupation with Stylism,, rather than the substance of learning and the capacity of creative thinking, is interesting for our considerations on Epistemology. It suggests that “Science” is perhaps a term of Praise and a tool of Class Distinction/Oppression, aside from its claimed virtues such as “Utility”, “Rationality”, and “Truth”.

The easiest way to discriminate something is by what is visible on the surface. We do that, therefore, by color of skin, hair styles, ways of dress. Languages are another easy target. We discriminate against people by their accents. In academic context, writing stylism is ver handy one. Substance, content, utility, messages are worst for discrimination. And by the time one “understands”, discrimination becomes ineffective.

(There are reasons for some standards for the efficiency of communication in social scales. And there are problems concerning the “Meaning” that people intend to transmit or grasp, and “Understanding” that a community of people reaches through communication. I shall discuss this in later part of this note.)

2. Under ordinary circumstances, we are not critical enough to distinguish between “Knowledge” and “Expression of Knowledge”. We think, if one knows, one ought to be able to express the knowledge in a proper form. We do not think stylisms, Rhetoric, etc., are important in Science. Nonetheless, we demand and judge “Knowledge” by the stylism, like judging the contents by the containers-packages by which they are wrapped.

To learn what we are doing in this regard, let us consider the examples below:

We note that Native Americans knew of the cooperative interdependence among living organisms, trees, animals, and humans, etc. It so happened that a word “Symbiosis” was “discovered” by academic science in 1960s. The notion of Symbiosis is, of course, recognized as a part of Science.

Does the Academy of Science credit Native Americans for the Discovery of Symbiosis? Of course not. But why?

One of rationalizations may be that Native Americans did not make “Knowledge Claim”. Native Americans did not publish their knowledge in Academic Journals, nor did they present their knowledge to an adjudicating body such as Royal Society. Perhaps, Natives practiced saying “Rain in Spain falls mainly on plain”, they might have had a chance for the recognition. But they did not.

3. In National Geographic Magazine [November, 1987] had an article about New Mexico. The article mentioned Dr. Fred Begay, who is a Navajo Indian. Dr. Begay thinks that the Myth about “Warriors Armed with Weapons of Light” suggests an ancient Navajo understanding of Laser Theory.

But there is a problem here. According to our standard “Ritual” of Knowledge Claim, such an “Understanding”, even if existed, does not count as “Knowing”. Because it was not expressed in a “proper format”. One has to write it up and submit it to an Authority, Just as Land Claims are. Natives did not accept the Authority of Whitemen’s Institutions. Therefore, there was no “Registration” submitted for Whitemen’s Recognition. So it remains outside Science.

4. In Leslie Marmon Silko’s Ceremony [Viking Press 1977. PS3569 I44 c4.] a Navajo Indian named Josiah gets cows of a hardy variety adaptable to the harsh climatic condition of the locality, instead of Holsteins that white ranchers around him raise. The idea is “scientific”, but then the poor Indian is not an “Agronomist”, had no school education, of course, nor Ph.D. Whatever he learned from his practical experiences is not recognized as “Science”. One can be a “Good Samaritan”, but cannot be a “Christian” unless one is formally labeled by the Church Authority.

5. Worse yet, I found a passage, in John R. Swanton’s collection of Haida Myth, describing Copper Smelting. It is the “standard” knowledge among anthropologists and ethnologists that North American Natives had not known Smelting Technology. Mayans knew smelting, but Haidas were supposed to be ignorant. The problem is that the Native Informer apparently did not know the Smelting Technology and narrated it to Swanton as a Myth about “Copper Salmon”. Swanton did not know Copper Smelting, and record the narration as a Myth and translated into English as such.

[Swanton.J.R. Haida Texts: Masset Dialect. “The Copper Salmon” Jesup Expedition vol. 10, part 2. p. 689. AMS Press 1975 P1,1L274 Zg 1137.]

Because the “standard theory” dictated that Haidas were ignorant about copper smelting, the field worker was not alert to notice the story to be any more than an incomprehensible Myth. And because the famous Ethnologist said it is a Myth, Haidas themselves think it Myth. They think their ancestors had no science.

To be sure Haidas today are well educated people. I am not surprised at all, if there are Ph.D. metallurgists among them. But the degrees came from schools in Euro American stylism. What schools teach as “science” has a certain “ritual” stylism, which is not readily identifiable with the stylism of the Native narrations. It is hard to recognize what are hidden under the name of Myth.

6. Carlos Castaneda’s stories are sold as “Stories”. does that mean readers cannot learn anything “Scientific” from them? Perhaps, many scholars and scientists would say Castaneda was “making up stories”. It is fiction, any way.

But, I wonder if the same scholars and scientists would say that Mathematics is just a “made up linguistic system” and hence “unscientific”, for it is not concerned with “experimental facts”, “observations” or anything “real”. On the top of that, Mathematics is proved to be either inconsistent or incomplete by mathematics itself.

Newton’s “Theory” of motions and Einstein’s “Theory” of Gravitational Field are not “descriptions of facts”, but rather aids to descriptions. Basically, they belong to Metaphysics.

What are, then the differences between Castaneda’s “Stories” and “Theories” in Physics or Mathematics?

Shall we say that one is recognized as “Science” by well established institutions of Science, and the other is not. Therefore, one is science and the other is not? If it were a political or religious matter, we might base our judgment on institutional authority. But is such a judgment itself “scientific”?

If not, what are the criteria? We use the term “Science” and “Scientific” frequently. But we do not have a set of clear specifications to judge if an Intellectual work is “Science” or not.

7. In the time of Colonialism, the British Empire had a great interest about China, and it produced “China Experts”. Some of Cambridge Professors became famous for their knowledge on China. Their reputations and prestige were World Wide, and what they said about China was taken as “Truth”, at least in Euro-American Academia. One of such dogmatic “Truth”, until late 1960’s, was that China never had Science. They acknowledged that China “Technology” such as production of Paper, Gun Powder, Rocket, Water Clock, Mechanical Dolls, etc. “Technology” is something practical and useful for working people, but it is not “Science” that European Scholars and Intellectuals take serious. It takes a Superior Intelligence to do “Science”. Naturally, Chinese could not have had “Science”.

Today, it is not wise to make such a contemptuous statement about China. So the professors stop saying that. But there has been no sign that those professors repudiated the previous view on Chinese Science. They apparently did not revise their “definition” of Science.

Now, suppose some Native make a claim of “Native Science”. What would be the reaction of the Experts? They may be polite and may not ask questions. But do they take Native Science serious? I doubt it.

8. Some 40% of medicines (chemical drugs) came from North American Native Herb Medicines. If one count Chinese Herb Medicines, the percentage would double. Does the “Medical Science” of ours recognize this? The North American Medical Profession would denounce Native Herb Medicine, being “Superstitious”, if not dangerous.

The “Medical Science” does not know how a chemical works, for the majority of cases. It only knows “effects”. Yet one is called “Science” and the other is called “Superstition”. How the two medicines are distinguished and discriminated?

It goes back to Stylism. One refined by test tube type chemical processes is the “Scientific Medicine”. One that is used in forms closer to the Natural state is the “Superstition Medicine”. The differences in Stylisms are far from trivial.

(To be sure, some medical doctors are honest enough to call Medicine and “Art”. But the people in the “culture”, in general, would be frightened to hear such a statement. They much rather “Believe” blindly in “Medical Science”. That is, those people who use the term “science” are rather superstitious.)

9. these are but a few examples of how Native Science is hidden from our recognition. And the “Recognition” has to do with “Social Status”. Practical people wishing to achieve a certain practical result would not and could not care less whether what they use is called “Science” or not. It does not bother them much.

And, that the Academia to be incompetent in recognizing Native Science may be a trivial matter. The Academia is fragmented to hundreds of small specialties. And scholars and scientists today have to compete within those specialty. They could not care less, if they do not know something, other than what gives the advantage in their competition.

But, if we are to consider the “Understanding by a society as a whole”, the matter is very serious. In the Political Economics of ours, “Recognition” is an important element. It defines “Reality”. And social scale cooperations of people must be based on the “Reality” as such. That some of “Recognition” is like the value of stocks just a matter of “Face Value” does not prevent them from being “Significant” and being taken seriously. And, for the “understanding” that a society or a community makes up by communication, Language Expressions are critically important. What are talked about in a society represents the “Intelligence” of the society.

Sticks and stones only hurt you personally, but “Names” (language expressions) could kill a society.

The above examples point the need of a critical examination of what we mean by the word “Science”. A simple act of uttering two words “Native Science” is a Political Act. Our Society can either reject it in laughing, or pay serious attention. In either case, the consequences are not trivial.

II. What is the difference between “Science” and “Practical Know-How”?

10. One outwardly visible feature of “Science” is that it is “Refined” in its articulation. And since the establishment of Scholasticism in the Middle Ages, the “Refine” meant “In Writing”.

[For Science in the Middle Ages, see; D.C. Lindberg (ed.) Science In the Middle Ages. U. of Chicago Press 1978. Q174.97 s35. W.A. Wallace Prelude to Galileo Boston Studies In the Philosophy Of Science vol.62. D. Reidel Press 1981. Q175 873. D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers. God And Nature U. of Calif. Press 1986. EL245 G53.]

That is, what is not written (printed) is not “Science”. The “Oral Tradition” of Natives is therefore excluded from Science as such. Today, under the rule known as “Publish or Perish”, it is extremely difficult to survive as a “scientist” without producing written statements. One might teach science, through experiments and oral communication, but one has to “edify” the teaching by some written materials. Even in this essay, I had to quote books published to impress upon you that I am doing a “Scholarly Work”. Whether or not you are duly impressed, that is the academic ritual.

Book Knowledge counts far more significant than personal experiences, observations, and thinking. And everybody in academia knows that citing of Big Names is very effective weapon, if one wishes to be taken serious. Quoting diary of one’s grandmother does not fare well in academia, and, I imagine, quoting some obscure Indian woman is not too much better than that. The assumption is that, if it is important at all, some Big Name Scholar must have picked up and published somewhere. That one does not quote from the Big Name can only mean ignorance.

11. But, in the History of Science, until very recently, private letters were important media of scientific and scholarly communication. One can see, in recent publications, scientists like Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Einstein, Cartan, et al used private letters for important scientific communication. They could not quote Big Names, because what they were “creating” were not known by the Big Names of previous ages. Besides, intellectuals such as Voltaire, Hegel, Mill, Goethe, et al, all had intense interests in Mechanics, Differential Calculus, etc., and apparently learned these things in private meetings (parties) through oral means. Interestingly, Voltaire, in particular, learned Newtonian Calculus-Mechanics from his Lady patron, Emilie Marquise du Chatelet. One can get some glimpse of the “Learning Through Conversation” by reading “Dialogues” by Galileo, Diderot, et al. There, apparently,Oral Tradition was alive and playing an essential role in the development of Science (though today we can only read them to guess how it was.)

[D. Diderot. The Dream of D’Alembert 1769. Neveu de Rameau 1761. G. Galilei Dialogue Concerning New Science. 1632.]

Today, thanks to the advancement in Printing Technology, we have almost killed the Oral Tradition in Science. At least, for formal recognition on Knowledge Claim, one has to have Printed Evidence.

12. One might say that this requirement of Printed Statements is a consequence of “Socialization” of Science. Science today is a “Profession”, not a “private” matter. Besides, Science today takes a huge financial backing, so much so that if one is not supported by ‘grants”, one is liable to be judged “unscientific”. The prestige of scientists are often measured by the Dollar Value of the grants they receive.

Science Native Americans did not get “Research Grant” to do their Science, and often they did not print their findings, it is likely that the Natives are judged as “Unscientific”. I wonder, if the Natives themselves think of “science” and judge their scientists by the Money Value. It used to be said in the North America, “If you are so smart, how come you are so poor.” Since, Natives see themselves “poor”, therefore they might think that they are not smart enough to do Science.

This is a Politico-Economy of Science today.

13. There remains an Epistemological question concerning the relations among “Expressions in Language”, “Knowing”, and “Understanding”. This is a question in Hermeneutics.

[see: Paul Ricoeur Hermeneutics And Human Science. Cambridge U press 1981.]

We note that in Euro American Culture, “Knowing” is only recognized by “Expression in Language” (Symbolisms, Signs, inclusive). And “Understanding” is reduced to insignificance, relative to the “Expression”.

We are not quite sure what are the differences between the people who knows Newton’s Equation for Gravitation (or Einstein’s Equation for the same) and people who competently move themselves and objects in the Gravitational Field.

The former is deemed to have Knowledge, in “Scientific” sense. The later has the skill to perform the task of moving, but is deemed to be ignorant. It matters little in terms of having the honor title of Knowledge, if one is able to break the Olympic Record in spectacular high jumping.

But then, spectacular high flight to Moon by a Rocket is said to be “Scientific”. I suppose the difference is that for the High Jump, we normally use little “language expression”, whereas for High Space Flight, we imagine many, many Formulas are used.

However, we not that no Formula in Physics had “understanding” of Gravity. In fact, the majority of human race seems to get less understanding when more Formula are used. Natives who had to survive in”raw” Nature appear to have had better “Understanding” of the Nature, but not much Formula. Are we, therefore, to call Natives ignorant?

In addition, we note a prevalent attitude to look down people who do things, relative to “aristocrats” who do not work. Intellectuals are respected, because they do not labor. Farmers are raged individualists, but they know the Power of Bankers who do no physical labor.

14. Newtonian Mechanics can be traced back to Euclid Geometry via Descartes’s Analysis. Relativity also came from Geometry. But, Geometry is one of the 9 Muses in Greek Myth.

Muses were 9 daughters of Gaea and Uranus (or of various others, which indicates that Muses preceded the time of Patriarchy where Zeus came in). They were, Thalia (Muse General), Memory (Clio), Calliope (Poetry), Terpischore (Dance), Melphomene (Tragedy), Erato (Love Poem), Euterpe (Music), Polyhymnia (Sacred Song and Geometry), Urania (Astronomy) [B.G. Walker The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets. Harper and Row 1983. However, Walker does not mention Geometry among Muses.]

The Alexandrian Museum was a Shrine of Muses and it was a institution very similar to what we might consider the “Ideal Liberal Art University”. And we not that those essential subjects for education were represented by Goddess. It was likely that women taught those subjects. Besides, learning as such was a “Delight”, if not “Erotic”. It was “Sacred”, but not in the secular sense of “Work”. Learning was “Ceremony” of Humaneness.

And Geometry was among muses (according to Aristotle et al). Perhaps, it might have meant “Visual Art”. Or, perhaps, it meant The Harmony (Structure) of the Universe. And Geometry was the Grandmother of Science.

If we understand Geometry as such, the we can also appreciate Geometrical Patterns of Native “Art” as “Science”. It deals with “Perceptions” of the World. It depicts Relationships of things and events, as the Spider Woman of Navajo Myth did. And notably, the “Mythological Geometry” also included Time Dimension, preceding Relativistic Cosmology.

[As to these senses of Cosmology, Silko also makes references in the novel Ceremony. For Artistic side, see Kandinsky’s writing. For “Eros”, see Wilhelm Reich Cosmic Superimposition. 1949. Wilhelm Reich The Mass Psychology Of Fascism. M. Bermann Enchantment of the World. J. Spring A Primer of Libertarian Education. Black Rose Books 1975. LC189 s73.]

At any rate, once we get to the level of “Understanding”, it is almost impossible to discriminate Muses from “Science”.

The reason we discriminate Native Science is that we do not want to “Understand” it. We do not wish to know the meaning. What we are afraid of is our own liberation. We do not like the burden of freedom. As to this, Existentialist writers wrote extensively. Therefore, I shall not repeat. But we ought pay some attention to what Nietzsche called “Slave Mentality”. To be free is not painless.

Even Castaneda who was lured by Power Trip, begun to know the History of Colonial Oppression. Castaneda did not develop an Understanding of the history, but it appears that he was bothered by it. The reason Castaneda did not “understand” the history was perhaps he was not prepared to take the pain. One wonder, if Castaneda went deep into the Colonial History, what would hve happened to the popularity of his books. Perhaps, he would never made “Best Sellers”. Readers do not wish to understand either. Rather, Castaneda stayed at the level of Power Trip. Today, such is the “Knowledge”, which is a “Commodity” to be sold at Market.

Of course, some of us in academia, who have to write in the way acceptable to editors of journals, are not in the position to cast stones at Castaneda. We are in the profession of manufacturing sellable “knowledge”. “Understanding” is perhaps too personal. Or, we are afraid, if our society as a whole “Understands” something, someone gets hurt. Because that is no less than a Revolution.

15. Relative to the Ancient Science, we see that our “Science” has gone through many changes, (or “perversions”). By the time of Aristotle, despite references to Muses, Science was already a “Macho”, “Authoritarian” Institution.

In the Middle Ages, it became Book Knowledge.

In Renaissance, it appeared to turn back to “Art” and “Artisan” (“craftsmanship”) for a short while. But the development of the “Absolute Power States” negated the move soon after. Newtonian Mechanics reflects the historical condition of the time. Mechanization of Thinking went with mechanization of Political System. Intellectuals were not a part of “Working Class”. Hence, the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages was revived in New Science very soon after it was appeared to have destroyed it. Of course, the emerging “intellectuals”, “scientists” were from lower class, and they brought “Work Ethics” with them. They were nominal “Petty Bourgeois”, but substantially “Proletariat”. These sociological conditions shaped what we call Science today. The Class Distinctions among people killed the Liberating Spirit of the “New Science” that Galileo et al started.

It is interesting to note that the “Fathers” of Modern Science were very much like “Spiritual Gurus”. For example, Rene Descartes had a Dream in which Angels appeared and told him to work on the mission of New Science. Descartes, pretending to be an “Enlightened Rational Intellectual” never mentioned his Dream in Public. Newton was a very devout Religious man. He wrote on Religious matters more than he wrote on Mechanics. He also indulged in Alchemy and spent more time on it than on Mechanics. Of course, physics texts rarely mention such things about Newton.

If we say Medicine Men and Medicine Women are “Religious”, and therefore they cannot be “Scientific”, we must also say that Newton and Descartes could not have been “Scientific”. That we dare not disqualify Descartes and Newton from being “scientists” is an evidence of our Prejudice.

The difference between Common Sense and Science is our habit of Class Distinction. We use our Superstition to Discriminate some people and Justify our Prejudice. There is nothing “Rational” about our edification of “science” and in our Worship of Printed knowledge. It is a matter of Politics.

III. Towards Liberation Science, Liberation Epistemology and The Role of Native Science in the Liberation.

What is “knowledge” if it does not help people to be liberated? For what value we learn Science?

And what is our strategy towards Liberation?

16. Science is far from “Value Neutral”. Slaves are the ones who have no value sense of their own. If Scientists who work on the routines of a Production Line have no “Value Sensation”, it is only because they are degraded to be Slaves. It is also known by a Sociological term “Alienation”. In such a case, their Masters have the sense of value and exercise will Power over them. “Value Neutral” means that the slaves give up the Right of questioning the Values held by the Masters.

Most Scientists work for Money. Some work for personal Pride, or Prestige. Some work for Power. A few work for the good of humanity. There are minority of Scientists who do Science for Love and Fun. Some may be “compulsive”, “megalomaniac”, “neurotic” etc. But there are “Values” in any case. And the Value dictates the Stylist of Science.

Different Cultures have different set of Values, or Value Priority Science in different Cultures would be different. And Stylisms would be different. The ways of communicating would be different. These things make recognition of “different silence” difficult. The only way to breakthrough and overcome such barriers is “Understanding”. But, even Understanding of European Science is not trivial. There are “good reasons” why we do not Recognize Native Science. Namely, we do not understand ourselves. Studies of Native Science is, actually, a help for us to understand ourselves.

17. Even within European Physics, Mechanics and Field Theory are completely different. Mechanics chases around motions of objects. Field Theory is concerned with “Environment”, so to speak. Only because their common Historical roots, they are recognized as two branches of the “Same” physics. But the level of “intelligence” is different between the two. If one is trained, one would immediately recognize the difference is Stylisms. That is more profound than what is referred as “Paradigm Shift”.

Unfortunately, European intellectuals in general are not aware of the difference. They are still in the Old Physics of Newtonian Mechanics.

A prime example is the Behaviorists in Psychology. They are trying a simplified Newtonian Mechanics for studies of “Mind”, but have no appreciation of Field Theory. Whereas, Native Americans exhibit Field Theoretical thinking patterns more often than Mechanical ones.

[see F. Capra Tao of Physics. 1975 and The Turning Point. 1982. E. Lehrs. Spiritual Science. Electricity and Michael Faraday. R. Steiner Press 1975.

Freud was “Mechanical”. Whereas Jung was Field Theoretical.]

18. In addition to the above two, Physics recently has come to “Non-Linear Physics”, (In Math the same is called “Catastrophe Theory” or “Topological Dynamics”, etc.) Or one might say that Physics finally has come to deal with the Complexity and Sensitivity that were neglected for a long time.

I shall not explain this new Physics here. But it is noted that Native Thinking Patterns are remarkably similar to “Non-Linear” Physics.

It appears that Natives are not “Primitive”, but rather too “sophisticated” in their thinking to be effective in a large social scale. When one wishes to get a heterogeneous society to cooperate in a Mass Mobilization, “Simple Slogans” are essential. The “Mass” was commanded by the Power. Things like “Understanding” was ignored. In the past 300 years or so, European Intelligence primarily depended on simple Mechanical thinking and pushed the Industrialization by Force.

It was a great success in one sense, but we all know that it created many problems. We came to the Dead End of the Simplified Power Strategy. Even if good for some, the days of “Forcing” is over. Guns that symbolize the Newtonian Way of doing things no longer bring solutions to the problems. “The Power of Revolution does not reside in the barrels of Guns”, if we parphrase Mao’s famous slogan.

Unfortunately, problems such as Environmental Pollution (concerning the Stability, Elasticity of Environment) are essentially Non-Linear. Simple Linear control devices such as “Money” do not work well. We need more sophisticated thinking to deal with complex Systems and complex Fields.

An important example of Non-Linear Field Dynamics is “Sensitivity” of Humans. But it is difficult, if one is to approach from European Science. We need a “strategy” in our learning of a “way out” of European Science. And “sensitivity” is one of important key for that. But to learn “sensitivity”, we need the very same “sensitivity”. That is; we are in a “Vicious Cycle”, which is a Prime example of Non-linear Dynamics.

The new strategy shall liberate Science. And in formulating a new strategy, we have to make “Science” a tool of liberation. How to break through this vicious cycle is the challenge of the New Science.

[For Pedagogy of Liberation Paulo Freire. Pedagogy Of The Oppressed 1985. See for Feminist point of view; Paula Gunn Allen. The Sacred Hoop Beacon 1986.]

And for the strategy of Liberation, the studies of Native Science and Feminist Critique of Science are very important.

19. The Dehumanizing effect of Science has been well documented by Capra’s Turning Point, etc. And we note that even in the beginning of the 20th century, Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of The West appeared. The problem is not new. It is just that, collectively speaking, we have been putting off the task of facing up to the problem.

Just as we have been ignoring and denying our oppression and repression of Native Americans — if we say “We Did Not Know”, then think about Why we did not know —, we have been refusing to admit the problems of Science.

The most readily noticeable characteristic of the Scientific Mentality is its preoccupation with Power and Insensitivity. Feminists pointed out that we are Proud of the Power-Trips and Insensitivity. For the sake of appearing as Macho, we thought we have to be Insensitive. Perhaps, it was Darwinism that commandes us to “Compete in Power Struggles and Win”. The God’s Design is such that the Winner is the Fittest and that is the Supreme Virtue.

Of course, we are not so strong as to having extra capacity to care for the Environment and other Life Forms. We had to use all we have to fight. We could not afford to be Sensitive. On one hand, we claim to be “God’s side” by winning power struggle. On the other hand, we are Fear Driven to defend what we got. Deep down, we know we are worthless worms, and therefore it is justified to fight dirty, using deceits, betrayals, tricks, lies, treachery, etc. which are our “technology-science” of survival. We can not live by Grace nor Love. Christians know that and call themselves “Sinners”.

And because we know ourselves to be ungraceful being, we think others to be equally ungraceful. What is more, we project our own “sins” on others and punish them. Since we are angry at ourselves, we are merciless against those presumed “sinners” and we perform atrocity as if it is a sanctified ritual to bolster our righteousness.

For most of us, Science is a precious little thing that tell us we are “Right”. Science is a precious little power that we have in fighting off all those barbaric hostility — that we projected after our own image — in the Nature and other Races. We cannot afford to criticize our Science.

20. Unfortunate consequence of our Fear is that our Insensitivity is rationalized by it. Unless we have some alternative vision to stand on, we cannot even start thinking of sensitivity.

The importance of our studies on Native Science comes in here. We are provided an opportunity to see things differently. Like Carlos Castaneda, we are lured by mystery and perhaps in our habitual quest for more Power, but we learn, at least, something different.

Our attitude may be more liek the “Romanticism” of the early colonialist who idealized the “Noble Savages”. Or we may be “Patronizing” Native Americans, from our assumed “Intellectural Superiority”. We would try to Rationalize and Justify Native Science on the basis of European Science.

From the point of view of Natives, this is unsatisfactory. But Don Juan just laugh at that. It is Tolerance/Kindness that is inherent in Native Science. The Sensitivity to “see” has to be cultivated carefully with the same Sensitivity. And Native Science is not like her European brother who has to push itself to dominate others. It is not tool of Power Dominance, but rather it is a Gift of Love. Natives do not believe in “Missionary Work” nor in “High Pressure Salesmanship”. It aims at Understanding, not Control.

21. There is, however, a context in which the above mentioned “unsatisfactory” state might pain Native Americans. That is, Natives themselves see the situation as “desperate”. Rocky, in Ceremony, was a full blood Indian, yet he saw no hope in Native Way. He was impressed by the Power Display of European Science, and he try to identify with the Oppressor. He was not aware that European Science has come to its Dead End. He was killed in Pacific for the Glorious Cause of War that marked the beginning of the end of the Colonialism.

Perhaps, there were many “Veterans of Vietnam War” among Natives. Perhaps, the War was a “Sacrifice” Natives would endure. Yet the pain is real. For their young generation is demoralized and deserting the Native Culture. They get into Alcohol and Drugs to ease their Pains. But the problems do not go away, just because one does not feel them. Ignoring, Rejecting, nor Denouncing does not make the problems disappear. One has to understand the problems and work with them, if one is to solve them. There, Native Science can be powerful help. Unfortunately, the obscurity and low prestige of Native Science make it difficult for Native sons and daughters to learn. Honored recognition of Native Science will help them in their recovery, or discovery of their own worth. And for that task, a construction of a Network of supports, — physical, mental, spiritual supports — is perhaps the first step.

22. Actually, the difficulty is common with all people in the World. In a context of discussing Peace Education, JoAnn McAllister and Matthew Fox writes;

“The Institute In Culture And Creation Spirituality at Holy Names College has been providing a critique of the Old Paradigm — Newtonian Physics and Fall/Redemption Christianity — and has been building the foundations of the New. Our Educational program reclaims the long-neglected creation centered Spiritual Tradition that begins with a Theology of Blessing; incorporates the new understanding of the emerging Universe; Reveres Native Spiritualities and evokes and celebrates the artist as a Prophetic Voice”

[Breakthrough. Spring/Summer 1987. p53. Publication of Global Education Associates.]

The writing is from a Christian background. Nonetheless, one hears a Common Voice shared with Native writers. It is a Prophetic Voice at our crisis. Native Science is the New Epistemology that reads the Prophecy of Blessing.

[page not available]

IV. That Science is Performance in Learning, and that Learning is Communal.

23. We tend to think of Science to be what are printed on papers. They are “Dead Science” and belong to History. Science alive is a Force of Knowing.

Epistemology in the past had the mistake of identifying Science with the Dead one. It used to preoccupy itself with the task of Justify, or Reject, claimed Knowledge. It did not look into the Process of Creating Science seriously.

“Knowledge” is not “out there”. Knowledge is created, not “discovered” in the sense it had been there under some cover. “Discover” only metaphorically refers to what goes on inside “Mind”. We take our self-imposed blinders off. That is the “Discovery”.

[Greek word translated as “Truth” in English, means “to take cover off”. It meant “exposing” what had been Concealed By Humans. The notion of Truth, as such, is Dialectical. It is a Collective of human Minds that conceals, and it is the same Collective of human Minds that exposes what it had been concealing. The Greek notion of Truth coincides with A. Eddington’s view of European Physics as a “series of mistakes upon mistakes.  Without previous mistakes, there can be no Physics learn on. This is a parallel to Oedipus Complex metaphor for Social Progress. But, we shall correct such a metaphor, and create a better metaphor, in the new science.]

Science alive is in the action/process of knowing. That is, it is in Learning Processes. Science refers to the “Ways” of learning. It recommends strategies of how to deal with Unknowns and Problems. That has nothing to do with the “Answer”. It is an “Approach”, “Procedure”, “Strategic Principle”. It is the “Ways”, not the “Results”.

24. In addition to the foregoing, the term “Discovery” is a misleading metaphor, in another sense that the word suggests Individual Discoverer. Perhaps, one person might “Discover” Gold Nuggets, etc. But that is not what happens in Science. Indeed Science is a Creation of New Way of Perception and/or Thinking. And there, “Communication” in a social scale is important.

In a larger view, it is Human Race as a whole that learns. Individual knowing is important enough, but Science ought not to be an Ego Trip. We do honor creative individuals. But Science is to be Science it has to be communicated. It has to be given away as a Gift of Love to Humanity.

And Science such as Geometry and Physics is developed in Linguistics level, presupposing existence of a “Language Community”. And the Creation has to be meaningful to the Community. Otherwise, making terms like “Force”, “Energy”, “Field”, etc. is useless.

That is, at least, Metaphysical and Theoretical structures are built on the basis of existing Language, and add new vocabulary. It requires existence of a community who speaks and thinks in the language. It is not just a person to sense something, but it is the Learning Process to reach an “Understanding By the Community” that is Science.

When we talk of “Knowing” (Epistemology), we ought to have meant the social process. The Epistemology in the past failed completely in this. Only recently, Frankfurt School of Social Criticism has come to address to this dynamics. Habermas, Ricoeur, et al are the examples. We have been blinded by our own “Egoism” to see our ignorance — or our “ignoring” —.

25. In contrast to the Individualistic Epistemology, one thing impressive in Native Science is that it is a communal effort. In Haida Myth, Mouse Woman always comes out and helps. What appears to be a “Heroic” deed in a European interpretation is actually accomplished by communal help.

Tayo, in Silko’s novel, reaches a resolution of his problem through communal help. Individual efforts were there. It should not be minimized. However, it is equally bad taste to ignore those who helped Tayo. And, in turn the Community as a whole learned. Tayo’s problem was not Just “His” in the individualistic sense. In Silko’s story, a new hope for the Community, if not the survival of Natives, is prophesied by Tayo’s learning. There is clear presence of the Spirit, which represents the 4-dimensional existence of the Natives — not only the historical Past, but also the prophesied Future —.

The Native Science is Communal. Native Science spans a huge Time Dimension, not only its Historical Past, but also the Prophesied Future. In contrast, European Science (Knowing) is like an isolated “Point here and now —, aside being Egoistic.

Even in religious contexts, this European “Egoistic Knowing” comes through. Perhaps, the original meaning did not intend, but Christians today think of Christ bearing the burden of “Sin” on himself Alone. None of Native Spiritual narration carries such a sense of “Alone-ness”.

In a sense, not having the sense of “Alone-ness” may be a weakness of Natives. Forced into a Civilization where “Everybody is for oneself”, Natives cannot function well. Only the Natives well educated in European Individualistic Epistemology can match their wit with the “foreign culture”.

To be sure, not all European descendants are competent in the game of Egoism. The majority fails. Thus, we do have social problems.

But, on the other hand, the problems, the pains, the suffering, are the well-spring of creativity, provided people are not crashed under completely. The Liberation Science-Epistemology cannot emerge from anywhere else.

The Liberation Science-Epistemology (Knowing) is the Learning Action of the Community as such.

The Native Communities that kept the Spirit of Communal Learning, under the heavy oppression is a great Teacher in this respect.

Our strategy is, then, to build Networks of Learning with Native Communities. Our institutions of Learning must sum up courage and set up the Networks. That would be the beginning of a New Science.

26. In a sense, we are about to “steal” the last and most precious Treasure from Natives by learning their way of humane existence. We do this after we have taken land away from them. We took their dignity away. In some cases, we have taken even their hope od survival and annihilated tribes all together.

I do not know what I could say to that. I only hope that Natives do not mind us learning their “Science”. A rumor is that their ancestor had prophesied this coming. And, perhaps, without paying proper respect, we may not be able to learn, if that is a sufficient tuition.

(Nov 30 1987.)

Newtonian View of Universe is lonely: Atoms in the vast empty space-time is a reflection of the way the modern men feel of their existence (PDF)

I. Newtonian View of Universe is lonely.

— Atoms in the vast empty space-time is a reflection of the way the modern men feel of their existence —

1. Introduction. Where we stand now.

Newton formulated his Mechanics, some 800 years ago in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It was an instant success. What was new in the Mechanics was the Mathematics of Differential Calculus, which was a language capable of constructing descriptions and predictions on the basis of “infinitesimally” small segments. According to the Mechanics, if one knows a very very small fragments of the universe, one can know everything, including what will happen in the future. The sense of power generated in the minds of people then was enormous. For the first time in the history that it knew, human intellect became powerful enough to replace “Prophecy” by “Scientific Prediction”.

One must appreciate this revolution in human intellectuality. Before that time, people had suffered from “false prophets”, “demigods”, and corruptions of religious institutions etc., for long time. Often, their spiritual needs were taken advantage of. Finally, people got a “sure thing” which was “true” as far as they can see, and accessible to anybody who learned the art of the language. It encouraged and empowered Europeans to go out for the adventures of colonial explorations and manufacturing industries. It liberated their minds from fear of unknowns. Man no longer needed to fear the Nature!

It was not that there was no navigational technology to get to New continent. Columbus already knew navigation by stars in 1400s. By the seventeen century, accurate clocks were in navigational use to tell the position of a ship in the middle of ocean, within a precession of 100 miles or less. But for a large scale transoceanic trades to develop, a few brave men and desperados were not enough. They needed something more to make range number of people to feel “confidence” in themselves, not only for the voyages, but also for “investments”. Newtonian Mechanics gave that. Spaniards may have braved rough Atlantic Ocean in their quest of Gold in the New continent. But they were not free from the sense of “adventure” in the haphazard voyages. British after Newtonian Mechanics had “deterministic knowledge” of the Future. They could rationally calculate their fortunes, thinking that occasional failures and accidents were exceptions, not the rule. In the peak of the British colonial trading, the returns of investments were like 400%. There were risks and losses, of course, but the colonial trades were not risking for 10% profits like investments today do.

Today, even English speaking people, by and large, do not know the meaning of the trade and consequently would not understand what a great confidence giver Newtonian Mechanics was. They think that Newtonian Mechanics is just a “physics”. It was the backbone of the Imperialism, if not the essence of the culture. And one ought to note that the “Power” of the Europe name from the “confidence” in knowing the universe. we know that people and group of persons can perform a lot efficiently when with confidence. If we are to think of ways to empower people, the first thing to do is to build confidence in themselves.

But, you might ask me; “Why then is Europe in decline today?” What happened to the confidence by Newtonian Mechanics? Did the physics change?

The physics indeed have changed. But I shall talk about that later. It is more important to think about what we think as “knowing” first. The knowledge of Newtonian Mechanics was a “knowledge” at the particular historical situation. It was the “environment” that made it “effective” and “powerful”. Newtonian Mechanics contained many flaws from the beginning. It was merely one way of “perceiving” the world, not a “Truth”. As much as it was useful in the circumstance, people can take it as a “Truth” and “the Description of Reality”. At least it was advantageous to believe in it, say for the “power of positive thinking”, even though it was not true, or even be wrong.

But, Newtonian Mechanics contained metaphysical assumptions which were not visible. Newton himself did not see himself making assumptions. A philosopher I. Kant was very much impressed by Newtonian Mechanics and wrote a critique — ironically titled as “critique of pure Reason” —, but he failed to see alternatives to the implicit assumptions. He ended up saying that Newtonian Mechanics is the Truth, and all human thinking ought to copy the style. Today, in retrospect, we would say that the metaphysical assumptions are like “prejudices” in the sense they can not be justified, though they can be believable immediately.

In Mathematics, and Logics, the basic assumptions are called “Axioms”. They are not “prejudices” because they are explicitly said. The first “Axiomatic” system known to the European science was that of Euclid Geometry. (Euclid himself did not axiomatize the Geometry, but Geometry was simple enough to be reduced into a set of axiomatic propositions soon after it was rediscovered by Renaissance scholars.) It so happen that the scholars instinctively suspected one of Axioms of Euclid Geometry. The suspected axiom was that about “Parallel line”. The axiom said that there can be one and only one parallel line to a any given line passing  a given point outside the line. Other axioms were short in expressions — such as “There is a point on a line between two points on the line” etc. —.

If you have done some geometrical exercises, you would know that the Axiom of Parallel line is very powerful one used very often. You would say that the axiom cannot be false, otherwise the whole Euclid Geometry word collapse. You are right in one sense, that is, the axiom is not false. It so happen that there were two alternatives to the Parallel Axiom. And without changing any other axioms, one can build two different geometries known as “Non-Euclid Geometries” There are “not false” just as Euclid one was. And Einstein et al found good uses for Non-Euclid Geometries and many others which they made up after the discovery of the freedom in geometries.

Kant was wrong only in that assuming that “There can be one and only one Truth”. It turned out that there can be many “truth”. Or one could say that there is no “truth” in any of geometries. Mathematicians and physicists today prefer the later version. They would say that “science” is not knowledge of Truth. Science try to be “helpful” to people, not asserting the authority of being Truth.

Unfortunately, the majority of “scientists” and academics even today are still in the medieval habit of asserting Truth, and do not like to acknowledge “non-truth” status of their “sciences”. They are ignorant of the foundation of science. I would imagine, even after you learned of the freedom of choices in theoretical constructions, you do not like to admit that what you are believing is “non-truth”. Your intellectual megalomaniac tendency would not like to settle for being merely “helpful suggestions”, but like to assert “Truth”. Intellectualism is an expression of “Machismo” which is also a cover up for the fear of modern individual cut off from Love relations.

One has to appreciate how lonely and fearful it is to see Newtonian cosmology in order to understand why the modern intellectualism had emerged with the triumph of Newtonian Rationality in the Industrial Revolution.

It is a contradiction of Dr. Faust who was an all-powerful intellectual on one hand and yet being a lonely kid looking for Love on the other hand. Dr. Faust, in the play written by J.W. Goethe at the time Germany was coming to the Scientific-Technological Age. Goethe was a writer, poet, a close friend of a philosopher Hegel, but also a “scientists” as well. He did understand the “pang” of the coming age. The pang was intellectual in the case of Goethe, but did convey, the pain and bewilderment that many of people, particularly the newly emerging “proletariats” under the misery of the industrialization, felt. One may have to read Marx’s account of the lives of laborers then. Our capitalism was built not only on the blood and sweat of working people but also on the alienation of the people driven out of communal life — i.e. a network of affectionate relations among peasants —. We note, however, even Marx thought it a “progress”. It required up-rooting of the old “Cosmology”. If we are to look the “adapting problems” of the Natives in North America in a parallel with the history, we would also see the significance of “Cosmology”.

Then, what so terrifying was Newtonian Cosmology? We are so brainwashed that we do not see the problem. We would say that Newtonian worldview is the true view of the Reality. It cannot be viewed in any alternative way. The Space-Time is there as Newtonian Mechanics says, independent of whatever we feel. We recall faintly that Einstein changed the worldview completely, but only a few among us dare to look at the universe in alternative senses.

Not that Einstein got it right, but he opened possibilities for different Cosmology. After Relativity of Einstein, there emerged Quantum Theory which stayed puzzling for a long time, but now coming to suggest us alternatives to Newtonian view and stimulated revival of “communal” senses of the universe. Thanks to those developments, we are now in a position to look back Newtonian World View and sense the problems in it. We no longer need apology in talking of our feelings in the ways we look at the Nature and the World, if not “Spiritual” Realms.

2. The Characteristics of Newtonian view of the World.

The characteristics of Newtonian view of the World are summarizable in a few brief statements. It says;

1) The Universe is a large empty Space-Time. Isolated Atoms exist in the vast vacuum. The Atoms are independent from each other and incapable of changing.

ii) There is no “Cause” — the Religious notion of cause is denied by Newton, his “Force” is not “cause”, despite the popular misunderstanding to be otherwise.

iii) There is no “Prophecy”. There is no “Purpose”, “Reason”, but accidents of conditions.

iv) Changes have to be “Forced”. And motions can only follow course “determined” (dictated) by the Mechanics of the Force. One simply has to be powerful enough to supply all energy needed for the desired motions.

v) Human Intellect is capable of knowing everything and to any accuracy desired. Hence, the courses of motions are controllable by Human Intellect.

vi) The Universe and everything taking place in it can be ‘measured” and treated in “Linearized Approximations”. (This is not from Newton himself, but held by the followers.)

Against such a set of assumptions, there have been several objections. A notable one among pre-Einstein time was that by E. Mach. Mach contended that there can be no such thing as Atom. He viewed that everything and anything is “related” to each others. An object is nothing but a symbolic representation of a “nexus of relationships” perceived by humans as a thing. The Universe then, is far from being “Vast Vacuum”, “Nothing”, “Emptiness”, but the theatrical stage of the relationships to unfold upon it as a drama. Even a minute grain of sand cannot move without moving the entire Universe in a complimentary mode. Mach advocated what we now call “Holistic View” of the World.

Oriental natural philosophy some three thousand years before stated that nothing is immutable, unchangeable, nor independent. We have yet to hear from Native Philosophy as to those issues.

Even within the Classical Physics, since emergence of Electromagnetic Field Theory in the 19th century, the “Empty Space” view of the Universe gradually gave away to more “sticky, filled-in” feeling of the Space. The vast “vacuum” of the Universe became something other than “nothing”. Rather, the “Field” concept made people to imagine and feel that there are “flows” of something invisible to us but nonetheless affects motions within. We can look at many pictures which M. Faraday drawn for the “Field”. They are remarkably beautiful. C. Maxwell who mathematized Faraday’s images into equations, also have drawn pictures, such as the Universe filled with “vortexes”. The only step missing was rebellion against the “god-like regularity” of Time Measure of Newtonian Universe. When the Time is also understood as a Dynamical entity, Einstein’s Relativity was born (1905). In that sense, we can view that Relativity was the first step by the modern intellectual to regain the “Enchanted Universe” that ancient people had.

[After reading this, don’t you ever say that Indians do not have the concept of time. they had a “Relativistic” sense of time. And in occasions like hunting Buffalos, they had to have split-second precession in their coordination of actions. they did that by “spiritually tuned in”. Otherwise, they could not survive. We, on the other hand, only have the “clock time” and have hard times coordinating our actions with people. We only know how to compete in Time, not cooperating. In WWI and II soldiers were often killed by the artillery fire from their own side, because of in-coordination in Time of the scale of minute.]

Interestingly, by Relativity, Time ceased to be an absolute measure, symbolizing the Newtonian Rationality. We now can appreciate why “primitive” people used to talk of Time as if an animated entity. Hegel’s notion of “spirit” as something to do with “Historical Time” was an attempt to revive the ancient Myth. But it was not understood in the Age of Newton. It would be respectable now, except that Hegelian sense of “spirit” is almost forgotten by the modern bourgeois intellectuals. [See Hegel on “Reason in History”. The famous remark of Marx “Knowing is not mere interpretation, but changing of the World” was in reference to Hegel’s Philosophy of History. Marx did not actually negate Hegel but stressed actions, Hegel did not deny “practices” either. The rhetoric of those Germans are excessively colorful, but often misleading. We need to read them with less polemical intensity but with more meditative reflection. Then we can appreciate what problems they were struggling with. Both of them tried anti-Newtonian view, but could not win the day. In terms of physics, I would make a parallel between the Electromagnetic Theory of M. Faraday and C. Maxwell with Hegel and Marx, respectively.]

We can compare such thoughts with the Western notion-prejudice of individual and see what implications the Western society led by Individualism has to pay for the assumption. Of course, the Western culture call it “Science” and deems the thinking in the mode to be “Rational”. Aside from punishing “individuals” for their crime and make them pay taxes, the western Metaphysics has no useful function. Rather, it forced upon itself many problems, among which Alienation of human lives and fighting wars and competitions are but two examples.

As noted before, the Western Metaphysics did make people to seek Power, Domination, in a conceit. But the results are less than praiseworthy. Its ill-effects and “pollutions” (both in substances and on minds) overweight any benefits that it brought upon the humanity. It was an “inappropriate” physics, in that sense.

The conceitedness comes in thinking that the “individual” can control deterministically whatever motion-change one desired. Humans simply do not have the energy to supply the motions. Rather, things do not happen by “Force”, but by “Triggers” in the sense a huge avalanche can be triggered by a mere whisper, when it is ready. Humans parasite on the Gifts of circumstances. Humans depend on the conditions of the Nature, just as a baby depends on the Mother. The baby cries and the Mother comes. But it would be a caricature of conceit, if the baby thinks it control and command the Nature, let alone “Force” the Nature.

The conceit from ignorance for itself is rather innocent. The western scientism went further than that. In its megalomaniac conceit coupled with the “lonely” view of the universe drive it to “conquering” other people in the context of colonialism. They could not see the relationships that come back to themselves. Their notion of knowledge was “isolationistic” and they thought they are above and beyond reactions. They saw everything including people as “objects” to be taken advantages. People in the old communal life would not dare thinking like that. But the age of science made it legitimate and praiseworthy calling it “rational”, “intelligent”.

The generosity of the Nature and people of the colonies let the “spoiled child” of the Europe abusing them go on a while. We note that even Marx failed to recognize the Gifts of the Mother Nature, in terms of fossil energy resources which enabled scientists and technologists to enlarge “productive power”. The industrialization would have been impossible without exploitation of the fossil energy resources. Marx did not see it, because he was like anybody else at the time believed in the hostile view of the Nature and thought that economy is based on “scarcity”, rather than “Gifts” of plentitude.

In retrospect, we would say that he ought to have noted the impossibility of the exchange economy without surplus. The origin of exchange economy is in Gift Giving in the surplus plentitude, not in the postulated “scarcity” of the Classical Economics. But the Newtonian View of the universe is a fearful one. What is not hostile cannot be taken serious by it. And, here we might reflect on the distinction between “Work” and “Play”. Today, we might operationally define “work” to be that which is pained and “Play” to be that which is not paid. But, then we have trouble as to house works that many of women do. They are not paid. Are they not “works”? In terms of the Gift economy, we can appreciate them as “Gifts”. But what the theory of economics do with “gifts”? It brushes off gifts as “irrational”. Although Marx advocated “dialectical” thinking, he could not deviate from the culture of theRationalism prevalent in his time. What is not either “Forcing” nor “Forced” is irrational and could not be a part of the intellectual work.

[As to the origin of “Economy”, Max Weber. The Theory of social and Economic organization would be a good introduction. K.H. Wolf, The sociology of Georg Simmel; K. Polanyi The Great Transformation, are also recommended. The later developments in the filed called “Economic Anthropology” are interesting, but I do not know good introductory text. Marx is said to have learned something from Iroquois Indians, but it seems that he missed a great deal, perhaps because it was a secondhand knowledge. For this, see M.K. Foster et al (ed.) Extending The Rafters.

Native Americans appear to have no compunction to write books about their wisdom. They probably do not understand the western intellectual hang-up about “writing on stone” to make oneself “Immortal”. My native friend, despite my prodding, pleadings and coercions, remains very “shy” about writing anything. It reminds me of Inuit way of non-assertion. It appears that they do not think they can be of great help to others, perhaps because of the long memory of oppression on native culture in the North America. Only way to get to their wisdom seem to be “stealing” the wisdom held in deep secret by snooping around them. It is almost as bad as asking questions to zen masters.]

As to the “Cause” and “Prophesy”, the modern physics after Einstein, came to think of various interpretations, including the “Time that goes backwards” and “Multi-dimensional Time”. The problems are not solved. We know without “purpose” that projects our thoughts into the Future, there can be no use of knowing anything. Yet, it is the most troublesome problem in sciences. It involves Time dimension where our ordinary Logics fails. I would say that the notion of “knowing” in the western intellect is an illusion. But then, we need something as alternatives which are not yet found.

I would imagine the future of cosmology has more to do with time or Time Dimensions than spatial extent of the Universe. Christian metaphor of the “one Linear Time as a measure” is too incompetent to deal with the universe. We need a dynamical sense of Time(s) which perhaps creates and annihilates. There are some attempts by physicists as to those kinds of Cosmology. At moment, however, ordinary people would reject them as insanity. They appear to be comfortable in Newtonian illusion and much rather stay in it till some catastrophe to drive them out of it. Basically, it is Fear of unknowns that keep them there. Unfortunate thing about the state of “Freeze in Fear” is that the catastrophe so invited by it may be worse. A good therapy in such a case is to suggest “crazy” cosmologies as fun-fantasies of tinker-toy plays. One cannot be creative in the defensive posture. To be courageous and creative, one way is to behave like children playing with the Mother Universe. Suppose there were some elements of eroticism in the play, I would imagine she would laugh and forgive us.

As to the “Linear Approximation”, I need to talk of mathematics a bit. The Differential calculus, which Newton, Leibniz and Seki invented almost at the same time, is a way of imposing Linear net of “Measures” on what are not Linear.

And Newton’s Mechanics talks of the “second order” terms in the linearization. The mathematical expression for “Force” reads as “the rate of changes of the rate of changes” (of positions of atoms/objects). The change is not linear when pictured on a graph paper. The graph paper is the ideal of “the net of linear measures”. The deviations from straight lines on the graph paper is like “sins” and needs “explanation”. Scientific “explanation” is a ritual of “exorcism”. By explaining one is pardoned. In that sense “explanation” is an “excuse”. And by the ritual, one gains a confidence.

Newton’s genius is in that he came up with a way of explaining: away the deviation from a straight line (linearity) by saying in the second order linearization one get a straight line. If not, one go on to the higher order differentials. Another psychological advantage is that by “differentiation” one get a number which gives an illusion of “constancy”. Hence, even though the differentials are not “objects” but rather “relations”, one can refer to them as if they are “objects”. Given our fear of motion/change, this conversion of “changing relation” to “constant object” is a good psychotherapy. But there is a price to be paid for it too.

The notion of “Measure” itself is a way of converting unknowns to “constants”. We humans are “ephemeral”. We know that. And that is why we desire “eternal constants”. Our science is from such a “sentimentality”, though we think we are “macho” in doing sciences.

Another thing to be noted is that the Linearity ideal also comes in the way “Statistics” is used to assert knowledge. We note tha Newton could not have reached to The Laws of Motion by statistical Analysis of co-relations. But, we still cling to the linear notion and correct all sorts of statistics. Mathematically, it is easy to see that Statistics does not “prove” anything. The best it could do is the “negation of negation” — double negatives of the kind such as saying “I have no evidence to say you have not killed your mother”, which the statistical scientists take as a good ground to say “You have killed your mother” —.

However, you try to tell that social scientists today. You would be considered insane. Because they “believe” in statistics as th only scientific way to know something. Even if they understand your mathematics and an elementary exercise in logic, they cannot stop their “belief”, because their intellectual pride and incomes depend on it.

The “Measuring” is, in mathematical jargon, a “mapping”, “projection” onto the line of Real Number. Why such a simple operation is thought so important? The answer seems to be that scientists and the public in general worship The Linearity. Something curved is “crooked” and evil. If it come back to make a loop, that is the dreaded Vicious Circle which the Western Religions tried so hard to negate. There is nothing in Newtonian Mechanics, as a mathematical system to object to Vicious Circles. And in fact, the loop structure is very important in Engineering of “Feed Back”. But the Western Science is not completely free from its religious heritages. Despite its brave renunciations, the Western Science is a part of Christianity, and carries taboos on thoughts.

[As to these points, perhaps Max Weber may be a good reference. See The Protestant Ethics and The Capitalism. L. White The Historical Origin of Environmental Pollution is also a good reading. “Some of my best friends” are Christian ministers. They agree on these, and go on to Liberation Theology. If you like to have “antidote” to my “poison”, perhaps H.Kung On Being a Christian, and Does God Exist, may be of good reference, though Kung is an excommunicated theologian. Interestingly Kung talks on Mathematics at a length. Mathematics and Physics are products of the Western Culture, yet they contain the seeds of their own death. From a point of view of the “Ephemerist”, that is good. The life of any individual entity, dogma, institution, ought to be finite, so that they can be replaced by better ones. That instance of eternal constant, immortality, is the problem.]

After going through the troubles of mathematics, modern science, and relate them to our environmental and social problems, we would come to convince ourselves that we do not need any apology talking of “Spiritual problems” of the Modern Age.

[J. Habermas edited a book titled “Observations on The Spiritual Situation of The Age”. MIT press 1985. It is a book in “Social Science”. But to use titles like that is no longer “crazy”. I suspect it may even become “fashionable” soon.]

If we look at the present situation with respect to Nuclear Arms Race, at an annual cost to us like 800 billion dollars, it becomes outrageously obvious that what we lack is not “scientific knowledge”. Scientific knowledge is good, if helps us. If not, we need to think them out. Science does have its way of death within itself. If one does enough of “scientific investigation” on the science itself, its limitations and even follies become undeniable, In that sense self-critical “sciencing of science” is important.

Another way of getting out the old science is to listen to what are repressed. As the cases of axioms demonstrated, opposites of widely held beliefs may be worth studying as the means of gaining alternatives. It is said that a great truth is great because its opposite is also true. Or one might say when one (system) becomes self-closed, its life is near the end. It means the loss of learning capacity. It happened to Euclid Geometry, and to Newtonian Mechanics. Hopefully our curiosity for unknowns would not die. Certainly, it appears that the curiosity with Cosmology is in its rise now.


10 December 1987 Personal Correspondence on Education Philosophy

Dec. 10, 87

Dear Prof. Ellis

In reading a book, I happened to find a passing comment that IQ test on children in a northern Native Community improved by “personal talks” with them by the testers. Apparently, there is an approach called “Test-Teach-Test” for children in different cultural backgrounds. I need your help about this. If you kindly advise me about literatures and data about this, I would appreciate it greatly. The reason for this is as follows.

I am not interested in IQ test. But I read the comment with an interest in that it suggests;

i) That thinking ability/performance, particularly learning ability is stimulated by interpersonal discourses,

[And further, this implies that thinking ability would not develop unless some interactions at a linguistic level take place. Verbalization and Communication of experiences are needed for the development of “Mind”.]

ii) “Knowing” is related with linguistic ability/performance. At least partly, Epistemology has to do with Linguistic ability/performance.

[Learning ability (efficiency) is greatly enhanced by having Verbalizing skill. Without language, (and language experience), one cannot learn on mental skills beyond a certain rudimental level.

“Playing with things, objects”, doing experiments, working, constructing etc., are not sufficient for the Intellectual development, to reach, say, the level of intelligence to have “Creativity”.

Saying things and having seen them communicated — having “Discourse” — is essential for the emergence and building-up of thinking capacity. Having a capacity of, or a level of competence in performing, “thinking” is called “knowing” something. Roughly speaking, “Theorization” in science does this “verbalization” and provide medium for the Discourses required, though I think “theorizing” is not identical with “knowing”.]

iii) “Speaking-up” and being listened; i.e. Discourse is essential for Intellectual growth.

[I do not believe Western Science is the only model, let alone “standard”, of what “Intellect” does. but, to reach a level of “knowing competence” to take Creative step in thinking, it is required that one has Discourse, (communication).]

I do not know if I am right in saying the above. But it may very well be the ease that those Native children were crying out for communication, as if it is a nourishment that is needed for their growth. And even a little bit that the tester gave made it possible for them to grow. It might have “triggered-on” their intellectual circuit in their brain. In this metaphor, brain is like unfinished computer, waiting certain “triggering experiences” to make “connection”. And the connections so made can be used to build on more sophisticated circuits. That is the learned is more “learnable”.

If I am right in this, then, the task of education is to provide the Discourse needed that is, of course, if the “education” is for liberation of people For the “Education of Industrial Slaves”, thinking ability is not needed. Besides “Creative Thinking” of the sort you are talking of may be “dangerous” to the society. Hence, the school systems may not wish to provide Discourse. They prefer to “teach” in the sense of handing down ready made “knowledge claims”. But, I would say that without Discourse, students would not come to “Know” anything. They just memorize, To have Discourse, students must be allowed to speak. Teachers have to be good listeners. In contrast to the present practice in “Teaching”, this would be revolutionary.

It so happened that some writers are aware of the meaning of “Speaking Up”. the “Chief” in One Flew Over Cuckoo’s Nest was a “Dumb”. His way out was “speaking out”, but for a long time he could not do it. many Native writers have pointed “Speechlessness” of Natives. Paula Gunn Allen, in The Sacred Hoop, writes;

“Tonguelessness. A dimension of alienation that is not mentioned in the literature concerning it but that occurs frequently in the works of American Indian poets and novelists. The inability to speak is the prime symbol of powerlessness in the novels of Momaday, Welch and Leslie Marmon Silko.”

However, the repression of speech is not exclusive to Natives. Girls in schools are “Silent” on subjects related to science, Math, Geometry. They would chat away their life on other matters, which are acceptable and even “fashionable” for girls and women to engage. Not that I think “science” as it is today is of any importance that is, there are many good reasons why they are not interested in science as such —. But, by not speaking, they are denying ability to think. They can be very Creative in other things — such as how to go about interpersonal relations, which is admittedly very important —, but not in things like Science. [Boys are not any better in this regard, but I prefer to talk about Girls in science. You know the reason,]

For surviving the 21st century, “Creative Science,” about Energy, Environment, Social systems/structures/Dynamics is essential. the ‘inability” imposed by the repression of speech is suicidal.

If they do not like the “Science” of today, then let them speak out and let them create their own science. In my view, “Science” is not Noun, but Verb meaning “Creating”. If Natives and womend do that, it would be great. I think, it is a matter of removing the repression, inhibition, (negation, intimidation). And the first step is to provide for them to have Discourse.

[As to Discourse, see Habermas, Ricoeur, etal. They discuss Epistemological implications of “Discourses”.]

Now all I said above depends on the three premises cited in the beginning. Would you help me in making them “convincing”? Or better yet, would you please tell me where I am wrong?


Sam K.

On the Marxist Cosmogony and Native American Cosmology. Ver. 29/04/87


On the Marxist Cosmogony and Native American Cosmology

—Marxist Cosmology as an expression of the European Culture in contrast to Native Cosmology in Native American Culture —.

1. Bourgeoisie Intelligentsia today live through their petty commotions without much reference to Cosmic contexts. This is a contrast to the “primitive people” who are very much aware of Cosmos in which they Place their existences and to which they refer significances of their daily actions.

Our Age, for those of us who are educated in the Western Science, is what some writers called “The Age Without God”. Or we might say our culture is “The Culture of Alienation”. Titles like “The Politcis At God’s Funeral” capture the prevalent sense. [M. Harrington Penguin 1985.]

To be sure, the modern intellectuals know Cosmology, Astrophysics, Space Technology, etc. They get daily bombardments from media of words such as “Big Bang”, “Supernova”, etc., regardless if they understand them or not. Books on Cosmology are abundant in most any bookshop, competing with Harlequin Romances, Biographies of movie actresses, How-to-get-rich, or -to-be-slim, books, etc. The loss of the “Cosmic Sense” is not a question of “knowledge”. Nor that means loss of subconscious interests in the Cosmos. modern men are just as “superstitious” in this respect, but their “ideological posture” is “rationalist”. That is, they try hard to pretend bing “rational”. And their notion of “rational” inhibits references to Cosmic senses in business, political, and intellectual contexts.

Horoscope columns in our newspapers and popular magazines are apparently very popular. People do entertain “cosmic consciousness” etc. when they are drinking in parties. There is no shortage of “religious fanatics” in the U.S. who would justify nuking the “Atheist State of USSR”. It is just that they know paying mortgages is the “reality”. The real reference to their “meaning of life” is Money, not God, Buddha, nor Cosmos. One can argues, in a pedantic style, whether or not the Money Economy is “Rational”. But, that would not make even a slightest impression on the sense of Reality and Rationality the people have and live by.

People have, thus, two distinct “world” so to speak. One is “Real World” which is operationally comprehended as that which concerns “Cash”, and “Physical Body Existence”. If we articulate this world further, it would come to some thing similar to “Materialist View” of the world. Natural Scientists, Businessmen, Marxists and Pragmatists talks about this sense of “Reality”. Even the majority Psychologists today appears to be “materialist” of this kind they are called “Behaviorist”, and they tend to deny existence of “Mind”, “Consciousness”, etc., let alone “Cosmic Consciousness”, “God” —.

But, the “Material World” is not complete, as much as the very same people who believe in it do make references to something outside of it. For example, “Future” is not “Real” to the materialists, yet they can hardly avoid references to Future. The Capitalists make their living in reference to future profits, which are not (yet) Reality. Marxists are examples of “materialists” along with the Capitalists, and do refer to Future (History). One difference between the Marxists and the Capitalists is what they each project (predict, prophecy) for unknown Future. If the both cut off references to Future, they would find themselves indistinguishable, except somehow fighting against each other. And even there, it would be hard to avoid references to implicit Future such as “Survival of the Fittest”. (Since whoever think and talk about “survival” must be living now, it does not make sense to talk of survival unless Furture is implied.)

[Natural Scientists often claim or pretend that they are solely concerned with “facts”. But they do make references to Future, which is not a “fact”. They call their references to the Future “Predictions”, and try to distinguish them from “Prophecies”. But, in claiming the superior reliability of their predictions, the scientist are saying essentially “I am the Truth. Follow etc.”. In this respect, Scientists are not different from Prophets and false Prophets in religious societies.

Of course, the scientists could avoid the troubles of claiming “Truth” as to their predictions by narrating more than one “possible outcome” (options), leaving choices among them to the dominant political Power of the society. But even then, the references to the Futures (pl.) are unavoidable.

That is, science is not about “facts” but about “predictions” which are non-facts. Its political power rests on the “trust” (authority) a culture place on it. If there is a “trust”, communication can be economized. Science is, in this sense, an efficient language (rhetorical) system for securing agreements in a social scale. Religions used to do that, but in the modern society, religions no longer effective in securing social scale agreements.]

[We also note that a gathering of “facts” does not constitute a “Theory”. As much as Sciences value Theories, they are not “factual”. they have to do with “How one thinks” (or “how one talks”).

To be sure, the Behaviorists are right in that scientists do formulate Theories so as to be rewarded. The theory which is rewarded by social recognition becomes a part of the “established knowledge”. A body of such knowledge is called “Science”. What or Who decides which “theories” to be rewarded is by and large a mystery — called “Paradigm” etc. and the process of competitions for the rewards are very much like those in the politics (power struggle) and the market (consumer taste).]

“Legitimacy” and/or “Righteousness” are the essential to any political movement and in social scale agreements. Materialists, Marxists, and Rationalists, and even “Behaviorists”, as social bodies in the quest of a power or an intellectual hegemony, can hardly afford to give up “Legitimacy”, and “Righteousness”. And in this sense, they are not different from Religious Institutions. And in making up “legitimacy” and/or “righteousness”, certain “cosmic sense” or “cosmic assumptions”, do play important roles Different cultures have different senses or assumptions — though we do have to decipher what they are, for more often than not, the fundamental assumptions are implicit about what the Universe is like.

I use a term “Culture” to designate such functions/performances of a social groups in giving the sense of “legitimacy/righteousness” to some and not to others. It is as if a society having a “collective mind”. What is referred as “Mind” in individual cases is complex and often a bundle of contradictions. But it is convenient to have the metaphor of “Mind” in a social scale to talk about how different “cultures” function and perform.

[The term “Ideology” may be used instead of “Culture”. But, I prefer “Culture” to include “feelings” and in viewing that cultures can contain contradictions more readily than “ideology”. I am avoiding “intellectual rationalizations”. For that for itself is a characteristic of a “culture”. Another term “Ethos” comes close to the sense, but it is “apolitical” term. “Culture” contains the both “Ideology” and “Ethos”.]

2. Marxism came when Europe was undergoing the Bourgeoisie Revolution. Whatever, ideologues said in rhetorical expressions, there were two things which changed the “old culture” in Europe. One was emergence of Mass Production Industry. The other is the massive displacement of population from rural to City Living. People are literally uprooted from their Communal Life, in a manner not too unlike “refugees” in the late 20th century.

The Death of God was death of the community. And in its place Science came to play the role of the “culture”. And the Mass Production dethroned The Mother Earth from the position of The Provider.

What happened in Europe since the 16th century is extaordinary. “Culture” usually develops slowly in time relative to the practices of its society. Actually, “Culture” and “Practice” are in a Feedback Loop, mutually enforcing each other. Culture stimulates developments of new practices in a certain direction, and inhibits developments in other directions and in turn Culture itself develops. But, the “scientific” culture in the modern Europe emerged as a rebellion against the old culture.

Freudian metaphor of “Killing Father to marry Mother” is an apt depiction of the way European Science came to the power. Interestingly, Freud himself was a participant of the “science” — that is to say Freud was analyzing the “mind” of Europe of that particular historical period, and he himself was an example of what he analyzed —.

The “Father” was the religious Part of the old culture. And we can understand expressions like “Death of God” (that which was paternalistic authority). That is clear enough. But did we also kill the Mother (that which generates “understanding” or the “sensual sense of knowing”)? Or are we looking for the Mother? One thing we know is that we lost the Mother, at least temporally.

[In metaphors, it is tempting to image “culture” to be the Mother, making “science” to be “unculture”, There are certain aspects of “science” which do suggest some “barbaric”, or “philistine” nature. Freud maintained a distinction between “culture” and “civilization”, and did not use term “culture” to Europe. One could be sympathetic to Freud and say that Technological society of ours does not have a “culture”.

If so, the “scientific revolution” in Europe killed both the old Science (Religion) and Culture.]

Just as Freud was a Product of the historical time, Marx was also a product of the society undertaking destruction of the old community, calling it “Ancient Regime”. Marx did notice the function of religions — he was sympathetic to the lower class who needed religions to soothe the pain, hence called religions “opium” for the poor. However, he apparently did not think of religions to be important subject and did not analyze the “psychology” deeper, but rather classified it as “irrational”. (In Freudian language, Marx hated the Father aspect of Religion, but had lingering affinity with the Mother aspect of Religion.) He was a believer of the rising “Science” then, Just as the Capitalists and the Bourgeois then were. He thought that enlarging of production power would solve most, if not all, social problems. Building of Industries was a common goal for Marxists, Bourgeoisie and the Capitalist. In a sense, Marx was right in believing industries. If Stalin did not push Industrialization, where USSR would be today? Of course not too many people would condone the Dehumanization that was paid as the price. But, the price of European Industrialization was no less dire. the tragedies of people in European colonies were a part of the costs. If north Americans condone what happened to the Natives on the land, there is not much position for them to condemn Stalin. The strategy, and ideology, of eliminating “unproductive population” was the same for both cases. Japan copied the same strategy. China is now copying the same.

3. Now that we have “over-production”, we are coming to reflect upon the history as such. We would say today, producing tens of millions of cars and TV sets would not make us “happier”. Rather, we would worry about environmental pollutions and destruction of the Nature. We care about degradation of “human quality” of our life, such as that indicated by “Crime Rate”, “Alcoholism”, “Alienation”. Perhaps we care because we have more than enough “material things”. Our “consumer market” is geared more towards “psychological” needs than “physiological” needs.

[Digital Hi-Fi electronics and personal Computers, for example, are not for hungry people. Yet they are the “high growth” industries now, along with “Fast Food Industry”. Farmers who produce foods are in trouble. Steel Mills are in trouble. Making more things is not what the market demands. And we have a “Non-Market” industry called “Military-Industrial-Scientific-Complex”, which does not contribute to production  of consumer goods, but is a very profitable institution. Of course, the poor half of the World Population lives in nations which cannot buy products from the Industrialized nations. Some millions die of starvation every year in those nations. But, it is not because we cannot produce enough food, but because we believe in Money as the Sacred Regulator of economy.

We cannot give foodstuffs to those starving people, even if we let our over produced food to rot. Because, in our money intelligence, to give something for no return is not a “rational” thing to do. In historical sense, we have barely escaped from “Appropriation Economy” — the Economy that is based on “taking away” by force —. Or rather, we have not finished that phase. We invented “Exchange Economy” to overcome the horrors and atrocities of the Appropriation Economy. We still have residues of the Fear from the past. We can intellectually see that the economy is evovling from Appropriation to Exchange, and Exchange to Gift. But the historical apprehension about “Appropriation Economy” prevents us to go into “Gift Economy” which do deny “equal exchange”.

To be sure, we can look at the troubles in and with the economy of “the third World” countries, and Welfare cases within the developed countries, and say it is not “equal”. That is, we are not really in the “Exchange Economy”, but rather still in the Appropriation Economy. But, we cannot deal with the problems of inequality on the basis of the exchange economics. the reason is that the Exchange Rationality is powerful and able to provide legitimacy for social scale action, precisely because it conceals inequality. Lenin noticed this and said “Equality is not equal”, meaning that one has to go to “Gift” level beyond superficial equality in exchange. However, Lenin was a “scientific” European intellectual, and could not use the term “Gift”. Such was the Culture of his time. We are now able to talk of “Gift”, only because we came to a crisis of Exchange Rationality.]

4. What is “Culture”, in the Native sense? What do the Native Americans mean when they say “Whiteman destroyed our Culture”? My guess is as follows;

{{{Dear Professor Colorado please help me here!!!}}}

“Culture” is what makes a community functional in providing a certain set of symbols and expected actions associated with them so that the member can communicate and get things done.

The expected actions may be rituals, code of ethics, set of obligations. They may be called “customs”. It informs an efficient way of organizing co-operation.

The kinds of expectation are also defined in the Culture. The members have the right to expect certain things and identify with the set-up. The Natives expect to be given foods when they somehow fall short of foods. They expect that they be cared by others when they get sick. They expect to be treated with respect as to their dignity. They may not be conscious of those, but the surprise, shock, which they experience when they are denied, tells that they have taken the expectations granted. And if they are betrayed too often, the community breaks down and that is break down of a Culture.

There are also a set of expectations about how to express “displeasures”, “disapprovals”, “warning”, etc. People knows a certain gesture would trigger a certain reaction in other members of the same Culture. For example, in Native Culture, issuing command is unacceptably rude. Even powerful chiefs make “suggestions”. Members carry out the chief’s wish out of respect, but they are not “slaves” to a commander. Europeans who came from slave society (Slave Culture) cannot understand this. Europeans often wondered how Native community keep a social order without “command”.

[Native God does not give “commandments”, but merely give “advices”. Incidentally, Buddhism does not issue commandments either. Judeo-Christianity is a religion of a Slave Culture, and very peculiar in that. This cultural background makes problems as to understanding of Science as “command” or as “advice”.]

Above narration of the set of “expectations” sounds very much like Social Welfare that European Culture come to practice recently. The Natives had it for a long time. Besides, there is very important difference. The Natives had the mutual helps as a part of their Culture. One does not “beg”, let alone feel loss of dignity in receiving the Gifts. One expects to be loved and it is given as a matter of “natural occurrence”. It is analogous to the expectation of Love from mother. It is given absolutely free. One would hesitate to call it “Right”. But, one would be justified in the Native Culture to be extremely upset, if the expected Love is not granted. and, one would not refuse to give Love to the others, unless there is grave reason for not to do so.

The European Social Welfare is not based on such cultural principle, but from “charity”, “appeasement”, “economic necessity for pump priming” etc. It has a logical stigma, even in the best of understanding, from a thinking that if the economy is functioning perfect Welfare would not be needed. That is Welfare is an anomaly, disease, emergency, not normal. It should not ideally be there.

Such is the European Culture. And this has a great deal to do with the European Comogony is that of “isolated bodies in vast emptiness”.

For the Native Community, the Community is the Welfare. There Welfare is the normal state of affair. It is sure family, not market for economy. Native culture is a Culture of Community. And it Cosmology is “Sensual”, — as if they are still inside the Womb of the Cosmos —.

The Native Cosmology is not only an expression of Native Culture, but the preserver of the Culture.

(Part I. 01/01/87.)

[We shall use for the part II.,

Douglas Sturm.

“Cosmogony and Ethics in the Marxian Tradition: Premise and Destiny of Nature and History.”

in R.W. Lovin and F.E. Reynold (ed) Cosmogony And Ethical Order U. of Chicago Press 1985.

among other references. We like to locate and identify the wellspring of Social Change (revolution) in the Culture. Cosmology is an expression of the way a society or a community thinks, which I referred as “Culture”. People have implicit cosmology to make sense of what they do. And it is founding metaphysics that facilitate communication, and hence the basis of the actions. That give us clues as to what are options for the Native Community.]